<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_19_0157228</id>
	<title>Visualizing the Ideological History of SCOTUS</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245424740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>langelgjm writes <i>"An interesting exercise in quantifying and visualizing ideological shifts, the website <a href="http://scotusscores.com/">ScotusScores.com</a> tracks changes in the ideological history of the US Supreme Court from 1937 to 2007. Ideological positions are quantified using <a href="http://mqscores.wustl.edu/">Martin-Quinn scores</a>, and the chart highlights the often-bumpy transitions (Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas), as well as tendencies within each Justice's career."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>langelgjm writes " An interesting exercise in quantifying and visualizing ideological shifts , the website ScotusScores.com tracks changes in the ideological history of the US Supreme Court from 1937 to 2007 .
Ideological positions are quantified using Martin-Quinn scores , and the chart highlights the often-bumpy transitions ( Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas ) , as well as tendencies within each Justice 's career .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>langelgjm writes "An interesting exercise in quantifying and visualizing ideological shifts, the website ScotusScores.com tracks changes in the ideological history of the US Supreme Court from 1937 to 2007.
Ideological positions are quantified using Martin-Quinn scores, and the chart highlights the often-bumpy transitions (Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas), as well as tendencies within each Justice's career.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28388795</id>
	<title>Re:Going to be more changes soon</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245421560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know Kennedy,* but unless he's an unusual lawyer, he probably <i>loves</i> being the swing vote.  In effect it's like having the STAR chamber** for the prosecution, the weak-lefties for the defense, and he gets to listen to their arguments and decide the case.  Or in cases where he already has a firm viewpoint on the subject, he can use his position in the middle to frame the terms of the decision.  If he doesn't find that appealing, he <i>should</i> retire, because he's gotten tired of the Law.
<br> <br>
*Insert Bentsen/Quayle joke here.<br>
**Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know Kennedy , * but unless he 's an unusual lawyer , he probably loves being the swing vote .
In effect it 's like having the STAR chamber * * for the prosecution , the weak-lefties for the defense , and he gets to listen to their arguments and decide the case .
Or in cases where he already has a firm viewpoint on the subject , he can use his position in the middle to frame the terms of the decision .
If he does n't find that appealing , he should retire , because he 's gotten tired of the Law .
* Insert Bentsen/Quayle joke here .
* * Scalia , Thomas , Alito , Roberts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know Kennedy,* but unless he's an unusual lawyer, he probably loves being the swing vote.
In effect it's like having the STAR chamber** for the prosecution, the weak-lefties for the defense, and he gets to listen to their arguments and decide the case.
Or in cases where he already has a firm viewpoint on the subject, he can use his position in the middle to frame the terms of the decision.
If he doesn't find that appealing, he should retire, because he's gotten tired of the Law.
*Insert Bentsen/Quayle joke here.
**Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28390341</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>Cajun Hell</author>
	<datestamp>1245427860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) should not be driven by ideology. The role of the judge is simply to apply the law impartially.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You will understand "progressives" a lot better, once you realize that the above statement <em>is</em> ideology.
</p><p>
Seriously, there are people who disagree with that statement.  What's amazing is that they are the majority.  Most people in the US now, think that the law is incomplete and implies things rather than says things.
</p><p>
Look at any SCOTUS case, let's say (here's a good recent one): Do convicted prisoners have the constitutional right to a DNA test to prove their innocence?  Almost <em>everyone</em> thinks giving convicts a DNA test (in cases where there is DNA known from the perpetrator to compare with) to re-verify their guilt is, at worst, harmless.  Among that group, probably most people think it's a good idea to go ahead and do it.
</p><p>
Progressives look at the situation and say, well, since the DNA testing is a good idea, then it's a constitutional right.  DNA testing is the mainstream technology du jour, and therefore, implicitly part of "due process."  It's <em>that</em> simple.
</p><p>
Conservatives read the law and say, "I don't see anything in the constitution about DNA. I just can't find DNA mentioned anywhere in that 1780s document, maybe my browser's search function is broken."  So they'll say it's not constitutionally protected, but many probably think it's a good idea and might vote for it if they happen to hold office as a state legislator. It's <em>that</em> simple.
</p><p>
They're both spouting ideology, but most conservatives don't <em>realize</em> that "the courts should apply the law impartially" is idealogy because they remember (or <em>think</em> they remember, but that's another topic) when such statements were common sense shared by 99\% of the population.  When ideology is unanimous and not divisive, we don't think of it as ideology.  But you have to pay attention to the growing population that sees the current laws as being <em>so</em> unfair, that those laws must not <em>really</em> be <em>The</em> Law.  Once that group becomes big enough, what was once common sense is now just one group's ideology.
</p><p>
"But it's obvious!!" you might think.  The law is so clear.  Don't forget, though, that the <em>real</em> law is not a document or set of ideals.  It's not code, no matter how many times some people say it is. The law is ultimately whatever whoever has the most force of arms <em>wants.</em>  It can mean mass murder to make room for the master race, or it can mean double-checking that convicts are really guilty.  The law is whatever we want it to be, and I think that when you look at it that way, progressives (whether their ideals are wise or foolish) have reality on their side.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Supreme Court of the USA ( SCOTUS ) should not be driven by ideology .
The role of the judge is simply to apply the law impartially .
You will understand " progressives " a lot better , once you realize that the above statement is ideology .
Seriously , there are people who disagree with that statement .
What 's amazing is that they are the majority .
Most people in the US now , think that the law is incomplete and implies things rather than says things .
Look at any SCOTUS case , let 's say ( here 's a good recent one ) : Do convicted prisoners have the constitutional right to a DNA test to prove their innocence ?
Almost everyone thinks giving convicts a DNA test ( in cases where there is DNA known from the perpetrator to compare with ) to re-verify their guilt is , at worst , harmless .
Among that group , probably most people think it 's a good idea to go ahead and do it .
Progressives look at the situation and say , well , since the DNA testing is a good idea , then it 's a constitutional right .
DNA testing is the mainstream technology du jour , and therefore , implicitly part of " due process .
" It 's that simple .
Conservatives read the law and say , " I do n't see anything in the constitution about DNA .
I just ca n't find DNA mentioned anywhere in that 1780s document , maybe my browser 's search function is broken .
" So they 'll say it 's not constitutionally protected , but many probably think it 's a good idea and might vote for it if they happen to hold office as a state legislator .
It 's that simple .
They 're both spouting ideology , but most conservatives do n't realize that " the courts should apply the law impartially " is idealogy because they remember ( or think they remember , but that 's another topic ) when such statements were common sense shared by 99 \ % of the population .
When ideology is unanimous and not divisive , we do n't think of it as ideology .
But you have to pay attention to the growing population that sees the current laws as being so unfair , that those laws must not really be The Law .
Once that group becomes big enough , what was once common sense is now just one group 's ideology .
" But it 's obvious ! !
" you might think .
The law is so clear .
Do n't forget , though , that the real law is not a document or set of ideals .
It 's not code , no matter how many times some people say it is .
The law is ultimately whatever whoever has the most force of arms wants .
It can mean mass murder to make room for the master race , or it can mean double-checking that convicts are really guilty .
The law is whatever we want it to be , and I think that when you look at it that way , progressives ( whether their ideals are wise or foolish ) have reality on their side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) should not be driven by ideology.
The role of the judge is simply to apply the law impartially.
You will understand "progressives" a lot better, once you realize that the above statement is ideology.
Seriously, there are people who disagree with that statement.
What's amazing is that they are the majority.
Most people in the US now, think that the law is incomplete and implies things rather than says things.
Look at any SCOTUS case, let's say (here's a good recent one): Do convicted prisoners have the constitutional right to a DNA test to prove their innocence?
Almost everyone thinks giving convicts a DNA test (in cases where there is DNA known from the perpetrator to compare with) to re-verify their guilt is, at worst, harmless.
Among that group, probably most people think it's a good idea to go ahead and do it.
Progressives look at the situation and say, well, since the DNA testing is a good idea, then it's a constitutional right.
DNA testing is the mainstream technology du jour, and therefore, implicitly part of "due process.
"  It's that simple.
Conservatives read the law and say, "I don't see anything in the constitution about DNA.
I just can't find DNA mentioned anywhere in that 1780s document, maybe my browser's search function is broken.
"  So they'll say it's not constitutionally protected, but many probably think it's a good idea and might vote for it if they happen to hold office as a state legislator.
It's that simple.
They're both spouting ideology, but most conservatives don't realize that "the courts should apply the law impartially" is idealogy because they remember (or think they remember, but that's another topic) when such statements were common sense shared by 99\% of the population.
When ideology is unanimous and not divisive, we don't think of it as ideology.
But you have to pay attention to the growing population that sees the current laws as being so unfair, that those laws must not really be The Law.
Once that group becomes big enough, what was once common sense is now just one group's ideology.
"But it's obvious!!
" you might think.
The law is so clear.
Don't forget, though, that the real law is not a document or set of ideals.
It's not code, no matter how many times some people say it is.
The law is ultimately whatever whoever has the most force of arms wants.
It can mean mass murder to make room for the master race, or it can mean double-checking that convicts are really guilty.
The law is whatever we want it to be, and I think that when you look at it that way, progressives (whether their ideals are wise or foolish) have reality on their side.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385375</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1245347220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're missing the big picture.  The Constitution is in some ways an ambiguous document and each of the justices has a different idea of how it should be interpreted.  This is an "ideology," but it's one that you need to have if you're a judge, otherwise you can't make any sort of ruling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're missing the big picture .
The Constitution is in some ways an ambiguous document and each of the justices has a different idea of how it should be interpreted .
This is an " ideology , " but it 's one that you need to have if you 're a judge , otherwise you ca n't make any sort of ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're missing the big picture.
The Constitution is in some ways an ambiguous document and each of the justices has a different idea of how it should be interpreted.
This is an "ideology," but it's one that you need to have if you're a judge, otherwise you can't make any sort of ruling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</id>
	<title>SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>reporter</author>
	<datestamp>1245346440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) should not be driven by ideology.  The role of the judge is simply to apply the law impartially.  Note that if SCOTUS had applied the law impartially in the early half of the 20th century, SCOTUS would have ruled that laws enforcing segregation are illegal.
<p>
Consider <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/06/nation/na-firefighters6" title="latimes.com" rel="nofollow">the case of the firefighters in New Haven</a> [latimes.com].  If the SCOTUS decides this case on the sole basis of the legal statutes (that government shall not hire or promote on the basis of skin color), then the results of the exam will be upheld.  All the white firefighters and the 1 Hispanic firefighter should be promoted.  If the SCOTUS decides this case on the basis of ideology (i. e., the idea that racial quotas are in the best interest of the USA regardless of the law), then the results of the exam will be rescinded, denying promotion to the firefighters.
</p><p>
These days, the SCOTUS is expected to be ideological.  So, political  parties, lobbyists, and any other political critter will try his hardest to support a candidate (for justice of SCOTUS) who (1) is willing to make a decision on the basis of ideology and (2) exhibits the ideology that the political critter supports.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Supreme Court of the USA ( SCOTUS ) should not be driven by ideology .
The role of the judge is simply to apply the law impartially .
Note that if SCOTUS had applied the law impartially in the early half of the 20th century , SCOTUS would have ruled that laws enforcing segregation are illegal .
Consider the case of the firefighters in New Haven [ latimes.com ] .
If the SCOTUS decides this case on the sole basis of the legal statutes ( that government shall not hire or promote on the basis of skin color ) , then the results of the exam will be upheld .
All the white firefighters and the 1 Hispanic firefighter should be promoted .
If the SCOTUS decides this case on the basis of ideology ( i. e. , the idea that racial quotas are in the best interest of the USA regardless of the law ) , then the results of the exam will be rescinded , denying promotion to the firefighters .
These days , the SCOTUS is expected to be ideological .
So , political parties , lobbyists , and any other political critter will try his hardest to support a candidate ( for justice of SCOTUS ) who ( 1 ) is willing to make a decision on the basis of ideology and ( 2 ) exhibits the ideology that the political critter supports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) should not be driven by ideology.
The role of the judge is simply to apply the law impartially.
Note that if SCOTUS had applied the law impartially in the early half of the 20th century, SCOTUS would have ruled that laws enforcing segregation are illegal.
Consider the case of the firefighters in New Haven [latimes.com].
If the SCOTUS decides this case on the sole basis of the legal statutes (that government shall not hire or promote on the basis of skin color), then the results of the exam will be upheld.
All the white firefighters and the 1 Hispanic firefighter should be promoted.
If the SCOTUS decides this case on the basis of ideology (i. e., the idea that racial quotas are in the best interest of the USA regardless of the law), then the results of the exam will be rescinded, denying promotion to the firefighters.
These days, the SCOTUS is expected to be ideological.
So, political  parties, lobbyists, and any other political critter will try his hardest to support a candidate (for justice of SCOTUS) who (1) is willing to make a decision on the basis of ideology and (2) exhibits the ideology that the political critter supports.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391235</id>
	<title>Re:I like visualization</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1245431760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The official histories were rewritten and now Republicans have ALWAYS been racists and Democrats have ALWAYS been the enlightened folk. But it ain't so.</i></p><p>&lt;img src="wharrgarbl.jpg"&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The official histories were rewritten and now Republicans have ALWAYS been racists and Democrats have ALWAYS been the enlightened folk .
But it ai n't so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The official histories were rewritten and now Republicans have ALWAYS been racists and Democrats have ALWAYS been the enlightened folk.
But it ain't so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28395495</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245404880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The role of the judge is simply to apply the law impartially.</i></p><p>Too bad they don't, or Lessig would have won and we would no longer have insane copyright lengths. Lessig takes responsibility for that, he mentions in his book that he takes responsibility for the loss and considers it the biggest failure of his life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The role of the judge is simply to apply the law impartially.Too bad they do n't , or Lessig would have won and we would no longer have insane copyright lengths .
Lessig takes responsibility for that , he mentions in his book that he takes responsibility for the loss and considers it the biggest failure of his life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The role of the judge is simply to apply the law impartially.Too bad they don't, or Lessig would have won and we would no longer have insane copyright lengths.
Lessig takes responsibility for that, he mentions in his book that he takes responsibility for the loss and considers it the biggest failure of his life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28389135</id>
	<title>Re:I like visualization</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245422940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All those bigots you see in the grainy newsreels turning water hoses and dogs on people, yup every last one of them was a Democrat.</p></div><p>It's just not hip to be a bigot any more, of any kind. Sorry.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Take Hillary Clinton's 'hero' Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Go dig into this central figure of the Progressive movement a bit. Lets just say it isn't an accident most of their efforts were (and still are) concentrated in the areas with large 'ethnic' populations. Crazy bitch was quite open (as most of the early Progressives were) about her notions regarding culling out the fast breeding but inferior breeds.</p></div><p>They <em>are</em> faster-breeeding, because of their <em>inferior social position</em>, which was created by racism (and in some cases slavery) and which is maintained by social welfare programs designed to keep you on the dole and voting democrat forever. On the other hand, the repubs seem to just want to create an outright meltdown in that portion of society. It IS the rational place to focus your efforts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All those bigots you see in the grainy newsreels turning water hoses and dogs on people , yup every last one of them was a Democrat.It 's just not hip to be a bigot any more , of any kind .
Sorry.Take Hillary Clinton 's 'hero ' Margaret Sanger , founder of Planned Parenthood .
Go dig into this central figure of the Progressive movement a bit .
Lets just say it is n't an accident most of their efforts were ( and still are ) concentrated in the areas with large 'ethnic ' populations .
Crazy bitch was quite open ( as most of the early Progressives were ) about her notions regarding culling out the fast breeding but inferior breeds.They are faster-breeeding , because of their inferior social position , which was created by racism ( and in some cases slavery ) and which is maintained by social welfare programs designed to keep you on the dole and voting democrat forever .
On the other hand , the repubs seem to just want to create an outright meltdown in that portion of society .
It IS the rational place to focus your efforts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All those bigots you see in the grainy newsreels turning water hoses and dogs on people, yup every last one of them was a Democrat.It's just not hip to be a bigot any more, of any kind.
Sorry.Take Hillary Clinton's 'hero' Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
Go dig into this central figure of the Progressive movement a bit.
Lets just say it isn't an accident most of their efforts were (and still are) concentrated in the areas with large 'ethnic' populations.
Crazy bitch was quite open (as most of the early Progressives were) about her notions regarding culling out the fast breeding but inferior breeds.They are faster-breeeding, because of their inferior social position, which was created by racism (and in some cases slavery) and which is maintained by social welfare programs designed to keep you on the dole and voting democrat forever.
On the other hand, the repubs seem to just want to create an outright meltdown in that portion of society.
It IS the rational place to focus your efforts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28389381</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245423960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The SCOTUS hasn't just become ideological "these days".  Way back in the early 1800s when it started to assert itself as a coequal branch of government, the two parties fought over it, with Congress even impeaching one of the justices.  It was overtly political in FDR's day, as evidenced by his attempt to pack it with a bunch of additional liberal justices.  Furthermore, there's been an ongoing evolution of the Court interpreting the Constitution, beginning with the point in which the John Jay Court interpreted it to give the Court authority over the states, and especially John Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution in <i>Marbury v. Madison</i> that the Court had the authority to... interpret the Constitution, thereby bootstrapping it into that role.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The SCOTUS has n't just become ideological " these days " .
Way back in the early 1800s when it started to assert itself as a coequal branch of government , the two parties fought over it , with Congress even impeaching one of the justices .
It was overtly political in FDR 's day , as evidenced by his attempt to pack it with a bunch of additional liberal justices .
Furthermore , there 's been an ongoing evolution of the Court interpreting the Constitution , beginning with the point in which the John Jay Court interpreted it to give the Court authority over the states , and especially John Marshall 's interpretation of the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison that the Court had the authority to... interpret the Constitution , thereby bootstrapping it into that role .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SCOTUS hasn't just become ideological "these days".
Way back in the early 1800s when it started to assert itself as a coequal branch of government, the two parties fought over it, with Congress even impeaching one of the justices.
It was overtly political in FDR's day, as evidenced by his attempt to pack it with a bunch of additional liberal justices.
Furthermore, there's been an ongoing evolution of the Court interpreting the Constitution, beginning with the point in which the John Jay Court interpreted it to give the Court authority over the states, and especially John Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison that the Court had the authority to... interpret the Constitution, thereby bootstrapping it into that role.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385915</id>
	<title>Re:I like visualization</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1245352200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There was a big realignment of constiuencies around '68...</p></div><p>Commonly referred to as Nixon's "southern strategy", i.e., try to monopolize the redneck bigot vote.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a big realignment of constiuencies around '68...Commonly referred to as Nixon 's " southern strategy " , i.e. , try to monopolize the redneck bigot vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a big realignment of constiuencies around '68...Commonly referred to as Nixon's "southern strategy", i.e., try to monopolize the redneck bigot vote.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385001</id>
	<title>What about Jews?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245342060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did 9/11 and we still have no justice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did 9/11 and we still have no justice : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did 9/11 and we still have no justice :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385905</id>
	<title>what purpose does the animation serve?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a crappy graphic on page one.  Gratuitous animation and no legend.  My initial reaction is to expect no meaningful content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a crappy graphic on page one .
Gratuitous animation and no legend .
My initial reaction is to expect no meaningful content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a crappy graphic on page one.
Gratuitous animation and no legend.
My initial reaction is to expect no meaningful content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385337</id>
	<title>Interesting, but why so limited?</title>
	<author>Shag</author>
	<datestamp>1245346740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>70 years of history is a good start, but the court is 220 years old this year, so I hope they'll be expanding their timeline.  It'd be interesting to see how the court in our lifetimes compares to the previous 150 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>70 years of history is a good start , but the court is 220 years old this year , so I hope they 'll be expanding their timeline .
It 'd be interesting to see how the court in our lifetimes compares to the previous 150 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>70 years of history is a good start, but the court is 220 years old this year, so I hope they'll be expanding their timeline.
It'd be interesting to see how the court in our lifetimes compares to the previous 150 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28387929</id>
	<title>Useless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is completely useless.  Some guys named Martin and Quinn estimate positions on a political spectrum using "Martin Quinn scores", which are not explained (the link to the explanation explains nothing.)
</p><p>So, what, they guess the justices' politics and then graph their guesses?
</p><p>If they <b>don't explain how they calculated the numbers</b>, this data is useless, or possibly worse than useless, being opinion masquerading as fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is completely useless .
Some guys named Martin and Quinn estimate positions on a political spectrum using " Martin Quinn scores " , which are not explained ( the link to the explanation explains nothing .
) So , what , they guess the justices ' politics and then graph their guesses ?
If they do n't explain how they calculated the numbers , this data is useless , or possibly worse than useless , being opinion masquerading as fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is completely useless.
Some guys named Martin and Quinn estimate positions on a political spectrum using "Martin Quinn scores", which are not explained (the link to the explanation explains nothing.
)
So, what, they guess the justices' politics and then graph their guesses?
If they don't explain how they calculated the numbers, this data is useless, or possibly worse than useless, being opinion masquerading as fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385403</id>
	<title>Re:I like visualization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245347280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can see the often-reported phenomenon of justices generally getting more liberal the longer they stay on the court.  Conervative justices in particular tend to trend mellower and mellower over time.</p></div><p>Funny, I was thinking that it looked like, for the most part, each justice became more extreme over their sitting, cons more con, progressives more pro...</p><p>but I also noticed a few that got more extreme, and then backed down right near the end</p><p>I'm just going on my first impression, so you might still be right</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can see the often-reported phenomenon of justices generally getting more liberal the longer they stay on the court .
Conervative justices in particular tend to trend mellower and mellower over time.Funny , I was thinking that it looked like , for the most part , each justice became more extreme over their sitting , cons more con , progressives more pro...but I also noticed a few that got more extreme , and then backed down right near the endI 'm just going on my first impression , so you might still be right</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can see the often-reported phenomenon of justices generally getting more liberal the longer they stay on the court.
Conervative justices in particular tend to trend mellower and mellower over time.Funny, I was thinking that it looked like, for the most part, each justice became more extreme over their sitting, cons more con, progressives more pro...but I also noticed a few that got more extreme, and then backed down right near the endI'm just going on my first impression, so you might still be right
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28390015</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1245426540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I absolutely agree with you about the application of law impartially. Unfortunately, that's far from reality.</p><p>For instance, if you read lot of the flak that Justice David Souter has gotten, especially from the conservative side, it is precisely his tendency to call things based on law and precedent rather than ideology that got them riled up. A lot of folks who have particular political opinions (most notably surrounding abortion, but there are plenty of other issues) want ideological justices because they see them as the easiest way to get their political views in place for a couple of decades without having to risk that a mere election can get rid of those ideas.</p><p>Now, thanks to what happened to the nomination of Justice Bork in particular, now nominees are encouraged to have the ideological views preferred by those who appoint them but hide them until after the Senate confirms them to the court.</p><p>On top of that, there are often ambiguities in law, and situations that kinda apply to a law but not exactly, and laws that are kinda Constitutional but come close to the line, and so on. It's very unlike computers, where it's ultimately some reliable 1's and 0's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely agree with you about the application of law impartially .
Unfortunately , that 's far from reality.For instance , if you read lot of the flak that Justice David Souter has gotten , especially from the conservative side , it is precisely his tendency to call things based on law and precedent rather than ideology that got them riled up .
A lot of folks who have particular political opinions ( most notably surrounding abortion , but there are plenty of other issues ) want ideological justices because they see them as the easiest way to get their political views in place for a couple of decades without having to risk that a mere election can get rid of those ideas.Now , thanks to what happened to the nomination of Justice Bork in particular , now nominees are encouraged to have the ideological views preferred by those who appoint them but hide them until after the Senate confirms them to the court.On top of that , there are often ambiguities in law , and situations that kinda apply to a law but not exactly , and laws that are kinda Constitutional but come close to the line , and so on .
It 's very unlike computers , where it 's ultimately some reliable 1 's and 0 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely agree with you about the application of law impartially.
Unfortunately, that's far from reality.For instance, if you read lot of the flak that Justice David Souter has gotten, especially from the conservative side, it is precisely his tendency to call things based on law and precedent rather than ideology that got them riled up.
A lot of folks who have particular political opinions (most notably surrounding abortion, but there are plenty of other issues) want ideological justices because they see them as the easiest way to get their political views in place for a couple of decades without having to risk that a mere election can get rid of those ideas.Now, thanks to what happened to the nomination of Justice Bork in particular, now nominees are encouraged to have the ideological views preferred by those who appoint them but hide them until after the Senate confirms them to the court.On top of that, there are often ambiguities in law, and situations that kinda apply to a law but not exactly, and laws that are kinda Constitutional but come close to the line, and so on.
It's very unlike computers, where it's ultimately some reliable 1's and 0's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385107</id>
	<title>Martin-Quinn scores are bogus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245343680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most political historians have long ago switched to the proper 4-Act Quinn Martin system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most political historians have long ago switched to the proper 4-Act Quinn Martin system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most political historians have long ago switched to the proper 4-Act Quinn Martin system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385499</id>
	<title>somewhat misleading color coding</title>
	<author>target</author>
	<datestamp>1245348240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the things that immediately struck me was that the conservative judges seemed to be more conservative than the liberal judges were liberal, based on the vividness of the color. Aha, I thought, I knew the liberals were more moderate!</p><p>But actually I think that's an artifact of the way the coloring was done. Look at Rehnquist as an associate and see the vivid red that his first year shows as, which is 3.98. Now look at Thurgood Marshall, below him, and find a -3.95. Those should look pretty similar in terms of intensity, but the blue looks much closer to white than the red does.</p><p>What I think is happening is this. They are color coding not on absolutes like that, but based on the distance between 0 and the most conservative or liberal number. But the most liberal justice is at -6, which the most conservative one is only at -5. So if you get a 4, that's 80\% of the way to being the most conservative, but someone who is equivalently liberal at -4 is only 66\% of the way to being the most liberal. So they get a color that looks like they are 66 points away from moderate as opposed to 80 points for the conservatives.</p><p>Well that's misleading. I think the color gradation changes need to be symmetrical across the graph or it's going to be super confusing. Maybe just call -5 the most liberal you can be and don't worry about shading Douglas more? Or make 6 the most conservative you can be and give up the super deep red color for now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things that immediately struck me was that the conservative judges seemed to be more conservative than the liberal judges were liberal , based on the vividness of the color .
Aha , I thought , I knew the liberals were more moderate ! But actually I think that 's an artifact of the way the coloring was done .
Look at Rehnquist as an associate and see the vivid red that his first year shows as , which is 3.98 .
Now look at Thurgood Marshall , below him , and find a -3.95 .
Those should look pretty similar in terms of intensity , but the blue looks much closer to white than the red does.What I think is happening is this .
They are color coding not on absolutes like that , but based on the distance between 0 and the most conservative or liberal number .
But the most liberal justice is at -6 , which the most conservative one is only at -5 .
So if you get a 4 , that 's 80 \ % of the way to being the most conservative , but someone who is equivalently liberal at -4 is only 66 \ % of the way to being the most liberal .
So they get a color that looks like they are 66 points away from moderate as opposed to 80 points for the conservatives.Well that 's misleading .
I think the color gradation changes need to be symmetrical across the graph or it 's going to be super confusing .
Maybe just call -5 the most liberal you can be and do n't worry about shading Douglas more ?
Or make 6 the most conservative you can be and give up the super deep red color for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things that immediately struck me was that the conservative judges seemed to be more conservative than the liberal judges were liberal, based on the vividness of the color.
Aha, I thought, I knew the liberals were more moderate!But actually I think that's an artifact of the way the coloring was done.
Look at Rehnquist as an associate and see the vivid red that his first year shows as, which is 3.98.
Now look at Thurgood Marshall, below him, and find a -3.95.
Those should look pretty similar in terms of intensity, but the blue looks much closer to white than the red does.What I think is happening is this.
They are color coding not on absolutes like that, but based on the distance between 0 and the most conservative or liberal number.
But the most liberal justice is at -6, which the most conservative one is only at -5.
So if you get a 4, that's 80\% of the way to being the most conservative, but someone who is equivalently liberal at -4 is only 66\% of the way to being the most liberal.
So they get a color that looks like they are 66 points away from moderate as opposed to 80 points for the conservatives.Well that's misleading.
I think the color gradation changes need to be symmetrical across the graph or it's going to be super confusing.
Maybe just call -5 the most liberal you can be and don't worry about shading Douglas more?
Or make 6 the most conservative you can be and give up the super deep red color for now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28397599</id>
	<title>On the other hand</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1245416580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This provides pretty good support for the claim that liberals think of themselves as being moderate and everyone else as being conservative. Fairly predictable for collusion between a couple of liberal hotspots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This provides pretty good support for the claim that liberals think of themselves as being moderate and everyone else as being conservative .
Fairly predictable for collusion between a couple of liberal hotspots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This provides pretty good support for the claim that liberals think of themselves as being moderate and everyone else as being conservative.
Fairly predictable for collusion between a couple of liberal hotspots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385933</id>
	<title>What a god-awful graphic!</title>
	<author>Roger Wilcox</author>
	<datestamp>1245352320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's nothing like a simple diagram made completely unreadable by needless flashiness.  Fancy graphics shouldn't be more important than the subject matter at hand.  Too many web page and game designers just don't get this.
<br> <br>
Even so, marquee text became practically obsolete on the web in about 1997.  Why would one ever dream of implementing the marquee chart?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing like a simple diagram made completely unreadable by needless flashiness .
Fancy graphics should n't be more important than the subject matter at hand .
Too many web page and game designers just do n't get this .
Even so , marquee text became practically obsolete on the web in about 1997 .
Why would one ever dream of implementing the marquee chart ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing like a simple diagram made completely unreadable by needless flashiness.
Fancy graphics shouldn't be more important than the subject matter at hand.
Too many web page and game designers just don't get this.
Even so, marquee text became practically obsolete on the web in about 1997.
Why would one ever dream of implementing the marquee chart?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391359</id>
	<title>Re:Going to be more changes soon</title>
	<author>PylonHead</author>
	<datestamp>1245432240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear he wrote the dissenting opinion in Maples v. Oaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear he wrote the dissenting opinion in Maples v. Oaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear he wrote the dissenting opinion in Maples v. Oaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386227</id>
	<title>Re:I like visualization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245441600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Alot of Progressive Democrats through WW2 and into the 50s were happy to call themselves racist,<br>&gt; and many Republicans still marginally considered themslves enlightened party-of-Lincoln<br>&gt; non-racists. There was a big realignment of constiuencies around '68, and this tends to skew<br>&gt; the definitional "liberal"/"conservative" meanings.</p><p>Not exactly.  whne public opinon on racism turned against it the Progressives in the media, academy and the arts did a fast pivot and suddenly racism was a conservative/republican thing.  The official histories were rewritten and now Republicans have ALWAYS been racists and Democrats have ALWAYS been the enlightened folk.  But it ain't so.</p><p>To hear modern 'historians' tell it Lincoln was a Democrat, the labels have just swapped somehow.</p><p>Nope.  Go look at old history.  The Solid South was all Democrat until the late 1970's.  Seriously, most Southern states didn't elect their first Republican Governor or Senator until then.  All those bigots you see in the grainy newsreels turning water hoses and dogs on people, yup every last one of them was a Democrat.</p><p>Democrats hated Lincoln (the first Republican POTUS) even more than that hate Bush (the most recent Republican POTUS).  So from Lincoln to Bush the Republicans have a pretty good record on the race issue.  Debate all you want about other aspects of the Bush record but the diversity of his administration is not really debatable.  Meanwhile Bill Clinton was hailed as the 'first black president' at the time but had a pretty darned monochome group of people around him.</p><p>And at this point the doubters will bring up Nixon and his "Southern Strategy."  No.  Total myth.  Nixon was many bad things, stupid wasn't one of them.  Go hit wikipedia and examine the election returns.  Note the third candidate.  Ok, remember that southern bigots HATED Republicans.  Hated with a white hot hate that would never die.  (the idiots dying off was the way it ended as things turned out)  So you are a Southern Yellow Dog Democrat and you have McGovern, Nixon and Wallace to pick from.  Oh yea, you are going to pick Nixon.  Riight.  We are to believe Nixon thought he could out bigot George Wallace without alienating the northern Republicans.</p><p>Note that there is ONE Kleagle of the Klan seated in the US Congress.  He is not a Republican.</p><p>This should be enough to put the "Republicans are racists" myth is put in question.  (It can't be 'debunked' in a slashdot post, all I can hope for is to plant some seeds of doubt.  It is up to YOU to follow up and learn the Truth for yourself.)  Now lets examine the other side a bit more.</p><p>As noted above, the south was almost enturely Southern Democrats.  But the racism of the Democratic Party was by no means a Southern thang.  It permeates the entire 'Progressive' project.  Go read Jonah Goldberg's \_Liberal Fascism\_ to get a full exploration of the connection between today's Democratic Party, the old Progressive movement, the Communists AND the Fascists and Nazis.  Yes, including the noxious ideas on race.</p><p>In this space lets let one example serve to get the curious asking questions about the accuracy of the history they have been taught.  Take Hillary Clinton's 'hero' Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.  Go dig into this central figure of the Progressive movement a bit.  Lets just say it isn't an accident most of their efforts were (and still are) concentrated in the areas with large 'ethnic' populations.  Crazy bitch was quite open (as most of the early Progressives were) about her notions regarding culling out the fast breeding but inferior breeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Alot of Progressive Democrats through WW2 and into the 50s were happy to call themselves racist , &gt; and many Republicans still marginally considered themslves enlightened party-of-Lincoln &gt; non-racists .
There was a big realignment of constiuencies around '68 , and this tends to skew &gt; the definitional " liberal " / " conservative " meanings.Not exactly .
whne public opinon on racism turned against it the Progressives in the media , academy and the arts did a fast pivot and suddenly racism was a conservative/republican thing .
The official histories were rewritten and now Republicans have ALWAYS been racists and Democrats have ALWAYS been the enlightened folk .
But it ai n't so.To hear modern 'historians ' tell it Lincoln was a Democrat , the labels have just swapped somehow.Nope .
Go look at old history .
The Solid South was all Democrat until the late 1970 's .
Seriously , most Southern states did n't elect their first Republican Governor or Senator until then .
All those bigots you see in the grainy newsreels turning water hoses and dogs on people , yup every last one of them was a Democrat.Democrats hated Lincoln ( the first Republican POTUS ) even more than that hate Bush ( the most recent Republican POTUS ) .
So from Lincoln to Bush the Republicans have a pretty good record on the race issue .
Debate all you want about other aspects of the Bush record but the diversity of his administration is not really debatable .
Meanwhile Bill Clinton was hailed as the 'first black president ' at the time but had a pretty darned monochome group of people around him.And at this point the doubters will bring up Nixon and his " Southern Strategy .
" No .
Total myth .
Nixon was many bad things , stupid was n't one of them .
Go hit wikipedia and examine the election returns .
Note the third candidate .
Ok , remember that southern bigots HATED Republicans .
Hated with a white hot hate that would never die .
( the idiots dying off was the way it ended as things turned out ) So you are a Southern Yellow Dog Democrat and you have McGovern , Nixon and Wallace to pick from .
Oh yea , you are going to pick Nixon .
Riight. We are to believe Nixon thought he could out bigot George Wallace without alienating the northern Republicans.Note that there is ONE Kleagle of the Klan seated in the US Congress .
He is not a Republican.This should be enough to put the " Republicans are racists " myth is put in question .
( It ca n't be 'debunked ' in a slashdot post , all I can hope for is to plant some seeds of doubt .
It is up to YOU to follow up and learn the Truth for yourself .
) Now lets examine the other side a bit more.As noted above , the south was almost enturely Southern Democrats .
But the racism of the Democratic Party was by no means a Southern thang .
It permeates the entire 'Progressive ' project .
Go read Jonah Goldberg 's \ _Liberal Fascism \ _ to get a full exploration of the connection between today 's Democratic Party , the old Progressive movement , the Communists AND the Fascists and Nazis .
Yes , including the noxious ideas on race.In this space lets let one example serve to get the curious asking questions about the accuracy of the history they have been taught .
Take Hillary Clinton 's 'hero ' Margaret Sanger , founder of Planned Parenthood .
Go dig into this central figure of the Progressive movement a bit .
Lets just say it is n't an accident most of their efforts were ( and still are ) concentrated in the areas with large 'ethnic ' populations .
Crazy bitch was quite open ( as most of the early Progressives were ) about her notions regarding culling out the fast breeding but inferior breeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Alot of Progressive Democrats through WW2 and into the 50s were happy to call themselves racist,&gt; and many Republicans still marginally considered themslves enlightened party-of-Lincoln&gt; non-racists.
There was a big realignment of constiuencies around '68, and this tends to skew&gt; the definitional "liberal"/"conservative" meanings.Not exactly.
whne public opinon on racism turned against it the Progressives in the media, academy and the arts did a fast pivot and suddenly racism was a conservative/republican thing.
The official histories were rewritten and now Republicans have ALWAYS been racists and Democrats have ALWAYS been the enlightened folk.
But it ain't so.To hear modern 'historians' tell it Lincoln was a Democrat, the labels have just swapped somehow.Nope.
Go look at old history.
The Solid South was all Democrat until the late 1970's.
Seriously, most Southern states didn't elect their first Republican Governor or Senator until then.
All those bigots you see in the grainy newsreels turning water hoses and dogs on people, yup every last one of them was a Democrat.Democrats hated Lincoln (the first Republican POTUS) even more than that hate Bush (the most recent Republican POTUS).
So from Lincoln to Bush the Republicans have a pretty good record on the race issue.
Debate all you want about other aspects of the Bush record but the diversity of his administration is not really debatable.
Meanwhile Bill Clinton was hailed as the 'first black president' at the time but had a pretty darned monochome group of people around him.And at this point the doubters will bring up Nixon and his "Southern Strategy.
"  No.
Total myth.
Nixon was many bad things, stupid wasn't one of them.
Go hit wikipedia and examine the election returns.
Note the third candidate.
Ok, remember that southern bigots HATED Republicans.
Hated with a white hot hate that would never die.
(the idiots dying off was the way it ended as things turned out)  So you are a Southern Yellow Dog Democrat and you have McGovern, Nixon and Wallace to pick from.
Oh yea, you are going to pick Nixon.
Riight.  We are to believe Nixon thought he could out bigot George Wallace without alienating the northern Republicans.Note that there is ONE Kleagle of the Klan seated in the US Congress.
He is not a Republican.This should be enough to put the "Republicans are racists" myth is put in question.
(It can't be 'debunked' in a slashdot post, all I can hope for is to plant some seeds of doubt.
It is up to YOU to follow up and learn the Truth for yourself.
)  Now lets examine the other side a bit more.As noted above, the south was almost enturely Southern Democrats.
But the racism of the Democratic Party was by no means a Southern thang.
It permeates the entire 'Progressive' project.
Go read Jonah Goldberg's \_Liberal Fascism\_ to get a full exploration of the connection between today's Democratic Party, the old Progressive movement, the Communists AND the Fascists and Nazis.
Yes, including the noxious ideas on race.In this space lets let one example serve to get the curious asking questions about the accuracy of the history they have been taught.
Take Hillary Clinton's 'hero' Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
Go dig into this central figure of the Progressive movement a bit.
Lets just say it isn't an accident most of their efforts were (and still are) concentrated in the areas with large 'ethnic' populations.
Crazy bitch was quite open (as most of the early Progressives were) about her notions regarding culling out the fast breeding but inferior breeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385579</id>
	<title>But where are the Quinn Martin scores?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245348840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bum-bah-dum-dum -- Bum-bah-dum-dum-dummmmmmmmmmmmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bum-bah-dum-dum -- Bum-bah-dum-dum-dummmmmmmmmmmmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bum-bah-dum-dum -- Bum-bah-dum-dum-dummmmmmmmmmmmm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386585</id>
	<title>Re:I like visualization</title>
	<author>Swanktastic</author>
	<datestamp>1245444840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good analysis.</p><p>It is fascinating that Roe vs. Wade occurred at a time when the median was at one of its more conservative moments (as measured by this index).</p><p>Plus, if you look at the bottom, the court has been moderate to conservative through the entire duration of this graph.  I'm not sure I actually buy into this metric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good analysis.It is fascinating that Roe vs. Wade occurred at a time when the median was at one of its more conservative moments ( as measured by this index ) .Plus , if you look at the bottom , the court has been moderate to conservative through the entire duration of this graph .
I 'm not sure I actually buy into this metric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good analysis.It is fascinating that Roe vs. Wade occurred at a time when the median was at one of its more conservative moments (as measured by this index).Plus, if you look at the bottom, the court has been moderate to conservative through the entire duration of this graph.
I'm not sure I actually buy into this metric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28390885</id>
	<title>There is no science in this.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1245430380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Political "science" is no more science than creation "science" is science.  This article belongs under politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Political " science " is no more science than creation " science " is science .
This article belongs under politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Political "science" is no more science than creation "science" is science.
This article belongs under politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073</id>
	<title>I like visualization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245343320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tufte might grouse though about all the small fonts and the overloading of the vertical axis...</p><p>Some things jump right out at me...</p><ul> <li>You can see the often-reported phenomenon of justices generally getting more liberal the longer they stay on the court.  Conervative justices in particular tend to trend mellower and mellower over time.</li><li>You can see how some justices, like Frankfurter, will trend contra the overall trend of the court.  As the court got bluer into the 50s, he got redder.</li><li>How is it that SEVEN of the nine justices who voted in favor of <em>Brown</em> were conservative? There's no way that case would get a unanimous decision today, and conservatives today are much more moderate on social issues than they were in the 50s.  This is probably an artifact of the single-dimension grading process than anything else.  Alot of Progressive Democrats through WW2 and into the 50s were happy to call themselves racist, and many Republicans still marginally considered themslves enlightened party-of-Lincoln non-racists.  There was a big realignment of constiuencies around '68, and this tends to skew the definitional "liberal"/"conservative" meanings.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tufte might grouse though about all the small fonts and the overloading of the vertical axis...Some things jump right out at me... You can see the often-reported phenomenon of justices generally getting more liberal the longer they stay on the court .
Conervative justices in particular tend to trend mellower and mellower over time.You can see how some justices , like Frankfurter , will trend contra the overall trend of the court .
As the court got bluer into the 50s , he got redder.How is it that SEVEN of the nine justices who voted in favor of Brown were conservative ?
There 's no way that case would get a unanimous decision today , and conservatives today are much more moderate on social issues than they were in the 50s .
This is probably an artifact of the single-dimension grading process than anything else .
Alot of Progressive Democrats through WW2 and into the 50s were happy to call themselves racist , and many Republicans still marginally considered themslves enlightened party-of-Lincoln non-racists .
There was a big realignment of constiuencies around '68 , and this tends to skew the definitional " liberal " / " conservative " meanings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tufte might grouse though about all the small fonts and the overloading of the vertical axis...Some things jump right out at me... You can see the often-reported phenomenon of justices generally getting more liberal the longer they stay on the court.
Conervative justices in particular tend to trend mellower and mellower over time.You can see how some justices, like Frankfurter, will trend contra the overall trend of the court.
As the court got bluer into the 50s, he got redder.How is it that SEVEN of the nine justices who voted in favor of Brown were conservative?
There's no way that case would get a unanimous decision today, and conservatives today are much more moderate on social issues than they were in the 50s.
This is probably an artifact of the single-dimension grading process than anything else.
Alot of Progressive Democrats through WW2 and into the 50s were happy to call themselves racist, and many Republicans still marginally considered themslves enlightened party-of-Lincoln non-racists.
There was a big realignment of constiuencies around '68, and this tends to skew the definitional "liberal"/"conservative" meanings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28389351</id>
	<title>Good point --- although you're entirely wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245423840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Consider the case of the firefighters in New Haven [latimes.com]. If the SCOTUS decides this case on the sole basis of the legal statutes (that government shall not hire or promote on the basis of skin color), then the results of the exam will be upheld.</i> </p><p>You've managed to pick an example that <i>precisely</i> contradicts the point you're trying to make.  The statute makes clear that the courts must prevent laws that are either directly or <b>indirectly</b> discriminatory (with lots of legislative debate and commentary to make it clear that they meant the second part).</p><p>(There was a reason for this wording: during the 20th century there were many examples of conditions that were not directly discriminatory on their face, but were clearly intended to have the effect of discriminating.  Egregious example:  requiring a literacy test as a condition for voting.  So the Congress made strong laws to deal even with this sort of back-door discrimination.)</p><p>Now in the Ricci case, a series of courts actually went ahead and enforced a law as written by Congress.  Which is precisely what you claim to want the court to do.  And yet, since you're unhappy with the outcome, you charge "judicial activism".  But you're absolutely turned around in this case.</p><p>Now, let's be clear: if you don't like the way the laws are written, you could take it to Congress and get them changed.  But you're not doing that, and I doubt that there's much public support for it.  Which is telling.  So instead of working through the legislative process, you misread the law and try to claim that the courts are modifying it, when they're enforcing it exactly the way Congress instructed them to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the case of the firefighters in New Haven [ latimes.com ] .
If the SCOTUS decides this case on the sole basis of the legal statutes ( that government shall not hire or promote on the basis of skin color ) , then the results of the exam will be upheld .
You 've managed to pick an example that precisely contradicts the point you 're trying to make .
The statute makes clear that the courts must prevent laws that are either directly or indirectly discriminatory ( with lots of legislative debate and commentary to make it clear that they meant the second part ) .
( There was a reason for this wording : during the 20th century there were many examples of conditions that were not directly discriminatory on their face , but were clearly intended to have the effect of discriminating .
Egregious example : requiring a literacy test as a condition for voting .
So the Congress made strong laws to deal even with this sort of back-door discrimination .
) Now in the Ricci case , a series of courts actually went ahead and enforced a law as written by Congress .
Which is precisely what you claim to want the court to do .
And yet , since you 're unhappy with the outcome , you charge " judicial activism " .
But you 're absolutely turned around in this case.Now , let 's be clear : if you do n't like the way the laws are written , you could take it to Congress and get them changed .
But you 're not doing that , and I doubt that there 's much public support for it .
Which is telling .
So instead of working through the legislative process , you misread the law and try to claim that the courts are modifying it , when they 're enforcing it exactly the way Congress instructed them to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider the case of the firefighters in New Haven [latimes.com].
If the SCOTUS decides this case on the sole basis of the legal statutes (that government shall not hire or promote on the basis of skin color), then the results of the exam will be upheld.
You've managed to pick an example that precisely contradicts the point you're trying to make.
The statute makes clear that the courts must prevent laws that are either directly or indirectly discriminatory (with lots of legislative debate and commentary to make it clear that they meant the second part).
(There was a reason for this wording: during the 20th century there were many examples of conditions that were not directly discriminatory on their face, but were clearly intended to have the effect of discriminating.
Egregious example:  requiring a literacy test as a condition for voting.
So the Congress made strong laws to deal even with this sort of back-door discrimination.
)Now in the Ricci case, a series of courts actually went ahead and enforced a law as written by Congress.
Which is precisely what you claim to want the court to do.
And yet, since you're unhappy with the outcome, you charge "judicial activism".
But you're absolutely turned around in this case.Now, let's be clear: if you don't like the way the laws are written, you could take it to Congress and get them changed.
But you're not doing that, and I doubt that there's much public support for it.
Which is telling.
So instead of working through the legislative process, you misread the law and try to claim that the courts are modifying it, when they're enforcing it exactly the way Congress instructed them to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386357</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>stefanlasiewski</author>
	<datestamp>1245442680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then why have humans in the Supreme Court at all? Why not just have computers do the work?</p><p>We have Judges because the law is often ambiguous and imperfect, and someone needs to interpret the law. There are different ways to interpret the law, and no human will be perfectly impartial, and all judgments will at least partially reflect the judges ideology.</p><p>I remember Chief Justice Roberts gave a speech on impartiality when he was nominated, and yet I'm pretty sure most of his decisions come from one side of the political/legal spectrum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why have humans in the Supreme Court at all ?
Why not just have computers do the work ? We have Judges because the law is often ambiguous and imperfect , and someone needs to interpret the law .
There are different ways to interpret the law , and no human will be perfectly impartial , and all judgments will at least partially reflect the judges ideology.I remember Chief Justice Roberts gave a speech on impartiality when he was nominated , and yet I 'm pretty sure most of his decisions come from one side of the political/legal spectrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why have humans in the Supreme Court at all?
Why not just have computers do the work?We have Judges because the law is often ambiguous and imperfect, and someone needs to interpret the law.
There are different ways to interpret the law, and no human will be perfectly impartial, and all judgments will at least partially reflect the judges ideology.I remember Chief Justice Roberts gave a speech on impartiality when he was nominated, and yet I'm pretty sure most of his decisions come from one side of the political/legal spectrum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385497</id>
	<title>Re:Going to be more changes soon</title>
	<author>fyrie</author>
	<datestamp>1245348240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Define "Progressive"</p><p>Is it going to be Geddy Lee?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Define " Progressive " Is it going to be Geddy Lee ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Define "Progressive"Is it going to be Geddy Lee?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385969</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1245352920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A judge who rules the way I like is applying the law objectively and impartially.</p><p>A judge who makes rulings I dislike is an activist making ideology-based decisions.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A judge who rules the way I like is applying the law objectively and impartially.A judge who makes rulings I dislike is an activist making ideology-based decisions.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A judge who rules the way I like is applying the law objectively and impartially.A judge who makes rulings I dislike is an activist making ideology-based decisions.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386249</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1245441780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>These days, the SCOTUS is expected to be ideological. So, political parties, lobbyists, and any other political critter will try his hardest to support a candidate (for justice of SCOTUS) who (1) is willing to make a decision on the basis of ideology and (2) exhibits the ideology that the political critter supports.</i></p><p>Why do you think people go to law school, become lawyers and then accept appointment to the bench? It's not just for the paycheck. It's because they want to have the power to give their ideology the force of law.</p><p>Human nature being what it is, we can't really expect the SCOTUS to be free of ideology. Human beings are not built that way. If a Judge's father was passed up for a deserved promotion because of racial quotas or racism, s/he will have a personal stake in the outcome of cases that touch on that issue.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days , the SCOTUS is expected to be ideological .
So , political parties , lobbyists , and any other political critter will try his hardest to support a candidate ( for justice of SCOTUS ) who ( 1 ) is willing to make a decision on the basis of ideology and ( 2 ) exhibits the ideology that the political critter supports.Why do you think people go to law school , become lawyers and then accept appointment to the bench ?
It 's not just for the paycheck .
It 's because they want to have the power to give their ideology the force of law.Human nature being what it is , we ca n't really expect the SCOTUS to be free of ideology .
Human beings are not built that way .
If a Judge 's father was passed up for a deserved promotion because of racial quotas or racism , s/he will have a personal stake in the outcome of cases that touch on that issue.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days, the SCOTUS is expected to be ideological.
So, political parties, lobbyists, and any other political critter will try his hardest to support a candidate (for justice of SCOTUS) who (1) is willing to make a decision on the basis of ideology and (2) exhibits the ideology that the political critter supports.Why do you think people go to law school, become lawyers and then accept appointment to the bench?
It's not just for the paycheck.
It's because they want to have the power to give their ideology the force of law.Human nature being what it is, we can't really expect the SCOTUS to be free of ideology.
Human beings are not built that way.
If a Judge's father was passed up for a deserved promotion because of racial quotas or racism, s/he will have a personal stake in the outcome of cases that touch on that issue.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28390487</id>
	<title>Re:I like visualization</title>
	<author>Martin Blank</author>
	<datestamp>1245428520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I tell people that the leaning of a particular justice even within the same session will not necessarily tell you how that justice will see the matter at hand.  Look at Gonzales v. Raich, where Rehnquist and Thomas -- two of the three most conservative leaning justices at the time -- voted in favor of allowing California's legalization of medical marijuana laws to trump federal law, while Kennedy and Scalia voted to let federal law win out.</p><p>You can make a general guess, but until the opinion is published, you just don't know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I tell people that the leaning of a particular justice even within the same session will not necessarily tell you how that justice will see the matter at hand .
Look at Gonzales v. Raich , where Rehnquist and Thomas -- two of the three most conservative leaning justices at the time -- voted in favor of allowing California 's legalization of medical marijuana laws to trump federal law , while Kennedy and Scalia voted to let federal law win out.You can make a general guess , but until the opinion is published , you just do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I tell people that the leaning of a particular justice even within the same session will not necessarily tell you how that justice will see the matter at hand.
Look at Gonzales v. Raich, where Rehnquist and Thomas -- two of the three most conservative leaning justices at the time -- voted in favor of allowing California's legalization of medical marijuana laws to trump federal law, while Kennedy and Scalia voted to let federal law win out.You can make a general guess, but until the opinion is published, you just don't know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391945</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>realnrh</author>
	<datestamp>1245434880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"In the news today, the Windows Supreme Court threw out claims against Microsoft for monopolistic practices yet again, despite that the case before the All-Knowing System was in regards to water rights between Colorado and California..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In the news today , the Windows Supreme Court threw out claims against Microsoft for monopolistic practices yet again , despite that the case before the All-Knowing System was in regards to water rights between Colorado and California... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In the news today, the Windows Supreme Court threw out claims against Microsoft for monopolistic practices yet again, despite that the case before the All-Knowing System was in regards to water rights between Colorado and California..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391913</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>realnrh</author>
	<datestamp>1245434700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, the case is more complicated than that. New Haven explicitly was throwing out the test results because under current law, results that display a distinct difference in outcome based on race are automatically assumed to have an invalid racial element to them. If they had not thrown out the test results, they would have been open to a lawsuit alleging that the test itself was racially biased, and under current law New Haven would have had a very hard time winning that case. The white firefighters need to prove that the test was not racially biased in order to make it acceptable.<br>
<br>
The Supreme Court may well find that New Haven acted legally in assuming the test to be invalid, but remand the case to the lower courts anyhow with instructions to examine the test's contents for racial bias, and uphold the test if they don't find any and prior testing has not shown a pattern of racial bias. That would be a slight loosening of the current standard, but not throwing out the entire doctrine, which would be an incremental step very much in keeping with the Roberts court thus far. It would also loosen the states and municipalities a bit to demonstrate their ability to conduct their own affairs in a colorblind manner as required by law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the case is more complicated than that .
New Haven explicitly was throwing out the test results because under current law , results that display a distinct difference in outcome based on race are automatically assumed to have an invalid racial element to them .
If they had not thrown out the test results , they would have been open to a lawsuit alleging that the test itself was racially biased , and under current law New Haven would have had a very hard time winning that case .
The white firefighters need to prove that the test was not racially biased in order to make it acceptable .
The Supreme Court may well find that New Haven acted legally in assuming the test to be invalid , but remand the case to the lower courts anyhow with instructions to examine the test 's contents for racial bias , and uphold the test if they do n't find any and prior testing has not shown a pattern of racial bias .
That would be a slight loosening of the current standard , but not throwing out the entire doctrine , which would be an incremental step very much in keeping with the Roberts court thus far .
It would also loosen the states and municipalities a bit to demonstrate their ability to conduct their own affairs in a colorblind manner as required by law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the case is more complicated than that.
New Haven explicitly was throwing out the test results because under current law, results that display a distinct difference in outcome based on race are automatically assumed to have an invalid racial element to them.
If they had not thrown out the test results, they would have been open to a lawsuit alleging that the test itself was racially biased, and under current law New Haven would have had a very hard time winning that case.
The white firefighters need to prove that the test was not racially biased in order to make it acceptable.
The Supreme Court may well find that New Haven acted legally in assuming the test to be invalid, but remand the case to the lower courts anyhow with instructions to examine the test's contents for racial bias, and uphold the test if they don't find any and prior testing has not shown a pattern of racial bias.
That would be a slight loosening of the current standard, but not throwing out the entire doctrine, which would be an incremental step very much in keeping with the Roberts court thus far.
It would also loosen the states and municipalities a bit to demonstrate their ability to conduct their own affairs in a colorblind manner as required by law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28395233</id>
	<title>Interesting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245403860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My assumption upon cursory examination is that the "conservative" indicator (red) and the "liberal" indicator (blue) would meet at 0.00, since the red numbers have positive numbers while the blue numbers have negative values.  However, the actual transition seems to occur at approximately -0.8.  The result, it would seem, is a overall picture that, at first glance, appears more conservative than it actually is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My assumption upon cursory examination is that the " conservative " indicator ( red ) and the " liberal " indicator ( blue ) would meet at 0.00 , since the red numbers have positive numbers while the blue numbers have negative values .
However , the actual transition seems to occur at approximately -0.8 .
The result , it would seem , is a overall picture that , at first glance , appears more conservative than it actually is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My assumption upon cursory examination is that the "conservative" indicator (red) and the "liberal" indicator (blue) would meet at 0.00, since the red numbers have positive numbers while the blue numbers have negative values.
However, the actual transition seems to occur at approximately -0.8.
The result, it would seem, is a overall picture that, at first glance, appears more conservative than it actually is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385423</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1245347400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't want SCOTUS to be run by humans?</p><p>What, then? Remove the people and leave it up to machines?</p><p>Human beings, by virture of being<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/alive/, with experience of life and personalities are by their very nature inevitably Ideological, in everything they do.</p><p>It cannot be seperated from anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't want SCOTUS to be run by humans ? What , then ?
Remove the people and leave it up to machines ? Human beings , by virture of being /alive/ , with experience of life and personalities are by their very nature inevitably Ideological , in everything they do.It can not be seperated from anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't want SCOTUS to be run by humans?What, then?
Remove the people and leave it up to machines?Human beings, by virture of being /alive/, with experience of life and personalities are by their very nature inevitably Ideological, in everything they do.It cannot be seperated from anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385437</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1245347700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the SCOTUS decides this case on the sole basis of the legal statutes (that government shall not hire or promote on the basis of skin color), then the results of the exam will be upheld.</p></div><p>I don't see how you can just state that ad arguendo.  If a court finds in favor of New Haven, they are strictly applying federal law.  Federal law might be quota-ist, but it's the law.  Is the court supposed to write its own laws, or apply it's own reading of the constitution when the Congress has specifically stated that it interprets the Constitution differently?  Conservatives only want "impartial rulings" and "strict construction" when it takes destroys people's civil rights and substantive due process, and when a court actually finds impartially <em>for</em> those things, they demand activism.  Both sides play this game.  Just find good judges and let them do their job-- throw them out if they're corrupt, but otherwise if they can convince 4 of their peers, give them the benefit of the doubt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the SCOTUS decides this case on the sole basis of the legal statutes ( that government shall not hire or promote on the basis of skin color ) , then the results of the exam will be upheld.I do n't see how you can just state that ad arguendo .
If a court finds in favor of New Haven , they are strictly applying federal law .
Federal law might be quota-ist , but it 's the law .
Is the court supposed to write its own laws , or apply it 's own reading of the constitution when the Congress has specifically stated that it interprets the Constitution differently ?
Conservatives only want " impartial rulings " and " strict construction " when it takes destroys people 's civil rights and substantive due process , and when a court actually finds impartially for those things , they demand activism .
Both sides play this game .
Just find good judges and let them do their job-- throw them out if they 're corrupt , but otherwise if they can convince 4 of their peers , give them the benefit of the doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the SCOTUS decides this case on the sole basis of the legal statutes (that government shall not hire or promote on the basis of skin color), then the results of the exam will be upheld.I don't see how you can just state that ad arguendo.
If a court finds in favor of New Haven, they are strictly applying federal law.
Federal law might be quota-ist, but it's the law.
Is the court supposed to write its own laws, or apply it's own reading of the constitution when the Congress has specifically stated that it interprets the Constitution differently?
Conservatives only want "impartial rulings" and "strict construction" when it takes destroys people's civil rights and substantive due process, and when a court actually finds impartially for those things, they demand activism.
Both sides play this game.
Just find good judges and let them do their job-- throw them out if they're corrupt, but otherwise if they can convince 4 of their peers, give them the benefit of the doubt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28395667</id>
	<title>Shade of color bias?</title>
	<author>myth24601</author>
	<datestamp>1245405540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it me or does the shade of red seem much deeper at -4.0 verses the shade of blue for +4.0?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it me or does the shade of red seem much deeper at -4.0 verses the shade of blue for + 4.0 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it me or does the shade of red seem much deeper at -4.0 verses the shade of blue for +4.0?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28387973</id>
	<title>Re:I like visualization</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1245417180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>.</p><p>How is it that SEVEN of the nine justices who voted in favor of <em>Brown</em> were conservative? There's no way that case would get a unanimous decision today, and conservatives today are much more moderate on social issues than they were in the 50s.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>That's because, despite what the way the media generally portrays things, conservatives are, typically, not racist. while liberals typically are (all the time claiming otherwise but indicating by their actions).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.How is it that SEVEN of the nine justices who voted in favor of Brown were conservative ?
There 's no way that case would get a unanimous decision today , and conservatives today are much more moderate on social issues than they were in the 50s .
.That 's because , despite what the way the media generally portrays things , conservatives are , typically , not racist .
while liberals typically are ( all the time claiming otherwise but indicating by their actions ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.How is it that SEVEN of the nine justices who voted in favor of Brown were conservative?
There's no way that case would get a unanimous decision today, and conservatives today are much more moderate on social issues than they were in the 50s.
.That's because, despite what the way the media generally portrays things, conservatives are, typically, not racist.
while liberals typically are (all the time claiming otherwise but indicating by their actions).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385567</id>
	<title>Re:SCOTUS should not be driven by ideology.</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1245348780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The protection against bias is already built into the system. It's why there are nine Supreme Court Justices instead of one, and why they are appointed positions for as long as they care to have the job (barring gross misconduct). As others have mentioned, this will be true and necessary for as long as humans are appointed to this position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The protection against bias is already built into the system .
It 's why there are nine Supreme Court Justices instead of one , and why they are appointed positions for as long as they care to have the job ( barring gross misconduct ) .
As others have mentioned , this will be true and necessary for as long as humans are appointed to this position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The protection against bias is already built into the system.
It's why there are nine Supreme Court Justices instead of one, and why they are appointed positions for as long as they care to have the job (barring gross misconduct).
As others have mentioned, this will be true and necessary for as long as humans are appointed to this position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28393315</id>
	<title>Re:I like visualization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245440400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather see them judged on "personal freedom and discretion" vs. "government intervention and coercion."  Liberal versus conservative is meaningless.  Respect for the Constitution is paramount.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather see them judged on " personal freedom and discretion " vs. " government intervention and coercion .
" Liberal versus conservative is meaningless .
Respect for the Constitution is paramount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather see them judged on "personal freedom and discretion" vs. "government intervention and coercion.
"  Liberal versus conservative is meaningless.
Respect for the Constitution is paramount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391547</id>
	<title>Re:somewhat misleading color coding</title>
	<author>phlinn</author>
	<datestamp>1245433140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's worse than you think.  In some cases, negative numbers are still colored red on the court average line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worse than you think .
In some cases , negative numbers are still colored red on the court average line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worse than you think.
In some cases, negative numbers are still colored red on the court average line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28404981</id>
	<title>Re:Going to be more changes soon</title>
	<author>Insipid Trunculance</author>
	<datestamp>1245497820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Souter's leaving, Ginsburg is likely to leave in the next two or three years (to ensure that Obama gets to choose her replacement), Stevens is likely to do the same... and all of them are considered likely at this point to be replaced by more distinctly progressive justices, since for the first time in decades there's a Democratic President with a Democratic Senate that can actually confirm his choices easily. None of the hard-right justices (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, or Roberts) is going to be stepping down voluntarily any time soon, but Kennedy might be getting some inclinations that way based on not being fond of being the constant swing vote, subject to pressures from all of his colleagues all the time.</i> </p><p>You guys need to fix your justice system soon.In the UK,Judges are impartial i.e. without any political affiliations who are supposed to deliver judgements based solely on the Law and not their political / social leanings.</p><p>They also retire at a certain age and that ensures that there is a constant inflow of new blood and more importantly, prevents any of them from suffering delusions of grandeur.With the new Supreme court of the UK coming up the judges will lose their last connection with the Parliament and will be truly independent of political affinity ( as far as humanly possible).</p><p>You have enough politics in two of your government branches,you should work towards making the third Politics free.</p><p>Lots of US discussion about big points of Law is about the <i>Personalities</i> in the Supreme Court rather than points of law.While its a given that no human can be entirely free of prejudices<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;that does mean that you should have a limit on how long the judges will serve so that there cant be a concentration of power in the hands of say social conservatives or liberals.Another good idea might be to have a quasi judicial body appoint and confirm judges so that the politicians can influence but not decide who gets to the US Supreme Court.The politicians will always want a Judge who leans towards them; a body to appoint judges will appoint good Judges because it will not want to harm its reputation.After all to trust politicians with any thing of importance is utter stupidity and if you have a little while look up a few of British newspapers to find out what our House and Crooks and House of Louts have been up to with regards to their pay and allowances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Souter 's leaving , Ginsburg is likely to leave in the next two or three years ( to ensure that Obama gets to choose her replacement ) , Stevens is likely to do the same... and all of them are considered likely at this point to be replaced by more distinctly progressive justices , since for the first time in decades there 's a Democratic President with a Democratic Senate that can actually confirm his choices easily .
None of the hard-right justices ( Scalia , Alito , Thomas , or Roberts ) is going to be stepping down voluntarily any time soon , but Kennedy might be getting some inclinations that way based on not being fond of being the constant swing vote , subject to pressures from all of his colleagues all the time .
You guys need to fix your justice system soon.In the UK,Judges are impartial i.e .
without any political affiliations who are supposed to deliver judgements based solely on the Law and not their political / social leanings.They also retire at a certain age and that ensures that there is a constant inflow of new blood and more importantly , prevents any of them from suffering delusions of grandeur.With the new Supreme court of the UK coming up the judges will lose their last connection with the Parliament and will be truly independent of political affinity ( as far as humanly possible ) .You have enough politics in two of your government branches,you should work towards making the third Politics free.Lots of US discussion about big points of Law is about the Personalities in the Supreme Court rather than points of law.While its a given that no human can be entirely free of prejudices ; that does mean that you should have a limit on how long the judges will serve so that there cant be a concentration of power in the hands of say social conservatives or liberals.Another good idea might be to have a quasi judicial body appoint and confirm judges so that the politicians can influence but not decide who gets to the US Supreme Court.The politicians will always want a Judge who leans towards them ; a body to appoint judges will appoint good Judges because it will not want to harm its reputation.After all to trust politicians with any thing of importance is utter stupidity and if you have a little while look up a few of British newspapers to find out what our House and Crooks and House of Louts have been up to with regards to their pay and allowances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Souter's leaving, Ginsburg is likely to leave in the next two or three years (to ensure that Obama gets to choose her replacement), Stevens is likely to do the same... and all of them are considered likely at this point to be replaced by more distinctly progressive justices, since for the first time in decades there's a Democratic President with a Democratic Senate that can actually confirm his choices easily.
None of the hard-right justices (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, or Roberts) is going to be stepping down voluntarily any time soon, but Kennedy might be getting some inclinations that way based on not being fond of being the constant swing vote, subject to pressures from all of his colleagues all the time.
You guys need to fix your justice system soon.In the UK,Judges are impartial i.e.
without any political affiliations who are supposed to deliver judgements based solely on the Law and not their political / social leanings.They also retire at a certain age and that ensures that there is a constant inflow of new blood and more importantly, prevents any of them from suffering delusions of grandeur.With the new Supreme court of the UK coming up the judges will lose their last connection with the Parliament and will be truly independent of political affinity ( as far as humanly possible).You have enough politics in two of your government branches,you should work towards making the third Politics free.Lots of US discussion about big points of Law is about the Personalities in the Supreme Court rather than points of law.While its a given that no human can be entirely free of prejudices ;that does mean that you should have a limit on how long the judges will serve so that there cant be a concentration of power in the hands of say social conservatives or liberals.Another good idea might be to have a quasi judicial body appoint and confirm judges so that the politicians can influence but not decide who gets to the US Supreme Court.The politicians will always want a Judge who leans towards them; a body to appoint judges will appoint good Judges because it will not want to harm its reputation.After all to trust politicians with any thing of importance is utter stupidity and if you have a little while look up a few of British newspapers to find out what our House and Crooks and House of Louts have been up to with regards to their pay and allowances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391169</id>
	<title>TV show rating scores?</title>
	<author>Slicebo</author>
	<datestamp>1245431520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what the scores are for "The Streets of San Francisco" or "The FBI".</p><p>I'm sure that "The Fugitive" is the highest of the bunch!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what the scores are for " The Streets of San Francisco " or " The FBI " .I 'm sure that " The Fugitive " is the highest of the bunch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what the scores are for "The Streets of San Francisco" or "The FBI".I'm sure that "The Fugitive" is the highest of the bunch!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385629</id>
	<title>Re:Going to be more changes soon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245349320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ginsburg, unless forced to resign by illness, will wait until after the 2010 midterms.  All signs point to the democrats getting a greater than 60 seat majority (likely 62, with the possibility of as much as 64), making it so Republicans would need democrats to vote against stopping a filibuster.  Which isn't going to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ginsburg , unless forced to resign by illness , will wait until after the 2010 midterms .
All signs point to the democrats getting a greater than 60 seat majority ( likely 62 , with the possibility of as much as 64 ) , making it so Republicans would need democrats to vote against stopping a filibuster .
Which is n't going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ginsburg, unless forced to resign by illness, will wait until after the 2010 midterms.
All signs point to the democrats getting a greater than 60 seat majority (likely 62, with the possibility of as much as 64), making it so Republicans would need democrats to vote against stopping a filibuster.
Which isn't going to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385005</id>
	<title>w00t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245342180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love deep dicking pussy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love deep dicking pussy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love deep dicking pussy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391615</id>
	<title>Re:somewhat misleading color coding</title>
	<author>DeathMagnetic</author>
	<datestamp>1245433500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure where you're measuring color saturation from, but it seems irrelevant in any case.  Color saturation is not a measure are how light or dark a color is, but rather how saturated with color vs how "gray" it is.  For example, a color with a color saturation of 0 could range anywhere from pure white to pure black, including all shades of gray in between, but no one would suggest that every shade of grey is equally intense.
<br> <br>
Look at the 1.48 square for John Roberts 3rd from the right.  It has an RGB value of (213,149,149).  Conversely, the -1.48 square for David Souter on the far right has an RGB value of (228,233,244).  Clearly the latter is far, far closer to white than the former, which should come as no surprise considering that it's quite obvious to the naked eye as well.  Hell, look at the 2nd square for Earl Warren (top row).  It's -0.45, which should place it slightly on the liberal side, yet it's colored a light pink.  It almost appears as if the color scale is centered around something like -0.80 rather than 0.  Either there are some fancy calculations going on that are not well explained and thus quite deceptive, or the colors are blantantly biased to make the reds darker and the blues lighter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure where you 're measuring color saturation from , but it seems irrelevant in any case .
Color saturation is not a measure are how light or dark a color is , but rather how saturated with color vs how " gray " it is .
For example , a color with a color saturation of 0 could range anywhere from pure white to pure black , including all shades of gray in between , but no one would suggest that every shade of grey is equally intense .
Look at the 1.48 square for John Roberts 3rd from the right .
It has an RGB value of ( 213,149,149 ) .
Conversely , the -1.48 square for David Souter on the far right has an RGB value of ( 228,233,244 ) .
Clearly the latter is far , far closer to white than the former , which should come as no surprise considering that it 's quite obvious to the naked eye as well .
Hell , look at the 2nd square for Earl Warren ( top row ) .
It 's -0.45 , which should place it slightly on the liberal side , yet it 's colored a light pink .
It almost appears as if the color scale is centered around something like -0.80 rather than 0 .
Either there are some fancy calculations going on that are not well explained and thus quite deceptive , or the colors are blantantly biased to make the reds darker and the blues lighter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure where you're measuring color saturation from, but it seems irrelevant in any case.
Color saturation is not a measure are how light or dark a color is, but rather how saturated with color vs how "gray" it is.
For example, a color with a color saturation of 0 could range anywhere from pure white to pure black, including all shades of gray in between, but no one would suggest that every shade of grey is equally intense.
Look at the 1.48 square for John Roberts 3rd from the right.
It has an RGB value of (213,149,149).
Conversely, the -1.48 square for David Souter on the far right has an RGB value of (228,233,244).
Clearly the latter is far, far closer to white than the former, which should come as no surprise considering that it's quite obvious to the naked eye as well.
Hell, look at the 2nd square for Earl Warren (top row).
It's -0.45, which should place it slightly on the liberal side, yet it's colored a light pink.
It almost appears as if the color scale is centered around something like -0.80 rather than 0.
Either there are some fancy calculations going on that are not well explained and thus quite deceptive, or the colors are blantantly biased to make the reds darker and the blues lighter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386023</id>
	<title>Re:Martin-Quinn scores are bogus</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1245353400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most political historians have long ago switched to the proper 4-Act Quinn Martin system.</p></div><p>Which, if correctly implemented, properly involves a prologue and an epilogue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most political historians have long ago switched to the proper 4-Act Quinn Martin system.Which , if correctly implemented , properly involves a prologue and an epilogue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most political historians have long ago switched to the proper 4-Act Quinn Martin system.Which, if correctly implemented, properly involves a prologue and an epilogue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385031</id>
	<title>Going to be more changes soon</title>
	<author>realnrh</author>
	<datestamp>1245342540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Souter's leaving, Ginsburg is likely to leave in the next two or three years (to ensure that Obama gets to choose her replacement), Stevens is likely to do the same... and all of them are considered likely at this point to be replaced by more distinctly progressive justices, since for the first time in decades there's a Democratic President with a Democratic Senate that can actually confirm his choices easily. None of the hard-right justices (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, or Roberts) is going to be stepping down voluntarily any time soon, but Kennedy might be getting some inclinations that way based on not being fond of being the constant swing vote, subject to pressures from all of his colleagues all the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Souter 's leaving , Ginsburg is likely to leave in the next two or three years ( to ensure that Obama gets to choose her replacement ) , Stevens is likely to do the same... and all of them are considered likely at this point to be replaced by more distinctly progressive justices , since for the first time in decades there 's a Democratic President with a Democratic Senate that can actually confirm his choices easily .
None of the hard-right justices ( Scalia , Alito , Thomas , or Roberts ) is going to be stepping down voluntarily any time soon , but Kennedy might be getting some inclinations that way based on not being fond of being the constant swing vote , subject to pressures from all of his colleagues all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Souter's leaving, Ginsburg is likely to leave in the next two or three years (to ensure that Obama gets to choose her replacement), Stevens is likely to do the same... and all of them are considered likely at this point to be replaced by more distinctly progressive justices, since for the first time in decades there's a Democratic President with a Democratic Senate that can actually confirm his choices easily.
None of the hard-right justices (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, or Roberts) is going to be stepping down voluntarily any time soon, but Kennedy might be getting some inclinations that way based on not being fond of being the constant swing vote, subject to pressures from all of his colleagues all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385867</id>
	<title>Re:somewhat misleading color coding</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1245351720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see that at all.  So I tested it.<br>
<br>
Loading the graphic in GIMP, setting a grid, and using the color picker tool, I measured color saturation from both axes:
<br>
<br>
Starting with the first grid box of the blue axis (all the way to the left), and measuring the color saturation every 5 grid boxes, I got the following values: 98, 73, 43, 17.
<br>
<br>
Doing the same with red, I got the following values: 100, 73, 41, 16.
<br>
<br>
The difference seems negligible to me, especially considering some of the reds have less saturation than the corresponding blue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see that at all .
So I tested it .
Loading the graphic in GIMP , setting a grid , and using the color picker tool , I measured color saturation from both axes : Starting with the first grid box of the blue axis ( all the way to the left ) , and measuring the color saturation every 5 grid boxes , I got the following values : 98 , 73 , 43 , 17 .
Doing the same with red , I got the following values : 100 , 73 , 41 , 16 .
The difference seems negligible to me , especially considering some of the reds have less saturation than the corresponding blue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see that at all.
So I tested it.
Loading the graphic in GIMP, setting a grid, and using the color picker tool, I measured color saturation from both axes:


Starting with the first grid box of the blue axis (all the way to the left), and measuring the color saturation every 5 grid boxes, I got the following values: 98, 73, 43, 17.
Doing the same with red, I got the following values: 100, 73, 41, 16.
The difference seems negligible to me, especially considering some of the reds have less saturation than the corresponding blue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28393089</id>
	<title>Re:Going to be more changes soon</title>
	<author>ravenshrike</author>
	<datestamp>1245439680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All signs point? What the fuck have you been smoking. That amount of backlash from the shit Obama's been doing, or not doing in the case of Iran, is beginning to swell. This is less than 6 months since he took the helm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All signs point ?
What the fuck have you been smoking .
That amount of backlash from the shit Obama 's been doing , or not doing in the case of Iran , is beginning to swell .
This is less than 6 months since he took the helm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All signs point?
What the fuck have you been smoking.
That amount of backlash from the shit Obama's been doing, or not doing in the case of Iran, is beginning to swell.
This is less than 6 months since he took the helm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386253</id>
	<title>Martin Quinn Seems Somewhat Misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245441840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first, I was amazed at how smoothly justices change over time, which makes the plot look very pretty. Then, I clicked on the link for the Martin-Quinn score, and saw this in the description: "The measures are estimated using a dynamic item response theory model, allowing judicial ideology to trend smoothly through time." I haven't looked into the math (all I can find after a quick search on their page is some custom C code), but the smoothing looks pretty severe, i.e. over several years.</p><p>There are on the order of 75-150 cases heard a year (it has been decreasing from 150 since the 80s) in the court - these are enough data points that they could bin the plot over a few months and show it without smoothing. My guess is this looks far less pretty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At first , I was amazed at how smoothly justices change over time , which makes the plot look very pretty .
Then , I clicked on the link for the Martin-Quinn score , and saw this in the description : " The measures are estimated using a dynamic item response theory model , allowing judicial ideology to trend smoothly through time .
" I have n't looked into the math ( all I can find after a quick search on their page is some custom C code ) , but the smoothing looks pretty severe , i.e .
over several years.There are on the order of 75-150 cases heard a year ( it has been decreasing from 150 since the 80s ) in the court - these are enough data points that they could bin the plot over a few months and show it without smoothing .
My guess is this looks far less pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first, I was amazed at how smoothly justices change over time, which makes the plot look very pretty.
Then, I clicked on the link for the Martin-Quinn score, and saw this in the description: "The measures are estimated using a dynamic item response theory model, allowing judicial ideology to trend smoothly through time.
" I haven't looked into the math (all I can find after a quick search on their page is some custom C code), but the smoothing looks pretty severe, i.e.
over several years.There are on the order of 75-150 cases heard a year (it has been decreasing from 150 since the 80s) in the court - these are enough data points that they could bin the plot over a few months and show it without smoothing.
My guess is this looks far less pretty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28393979</id>
	<title>Re:I like visualization</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1245442860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Political allegiance might take a back seat to good legal arguments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Political allegiance might take a back seat to good legal arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Political allegiance might take a back seat to good legal arguments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28390341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28388795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28393315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28395495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28404981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28390487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28389135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28389351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28393979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28393089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28389381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28390015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28387973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0157228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0157228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28389351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28395495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28389381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28390341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28390015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0157228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28393979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28387973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28389135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28393315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28390487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0157228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28387929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0157228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0157228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0157228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28386253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0157228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28404981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28388795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28391359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28393089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0157228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0157228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0157228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0157228.28385337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
