Cease and Desist letter from Senator to constituents

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

The original claim is that Blount, but not McCaskill, is seen as corrupt.

I don’t think the “but not McCaskill” part is actually part of the original claim.

@Bricker

Is that a defensible claim?

Of course it is. If a number is absolutely necessary to determine how many people must view another as corrupt before you can say they’re corrupt, the number is “one person.” But trying to take a sentence like that and parse it as a computer would parse a command is silliness.

If there is a somewhat common view of Blount that he’s corrupt, that suffices to make the statement true.

That said, this whole thing is way off-topic, so it’s the last I’ll say here.

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I don’t think the “but not McCaskill” part is actually part of the original claim.

The original claim:

. . .because my Democratic Senator is seen as a moderate, whereas my GOP Senator is seen as very right-wing, very unlikely to turn on the party, and highly corrupt. . . .

[doorhinge]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Calling the OP fake news is a contemptible misapplication of the term. I was incorrect about a detail, but it was inadvertent, and I acknowledge the correction as soon as someone found it.

(post shortened)

Hahahaha. I’m not responsible for what you wrote. You linked to a letter from a Senator’s staff member to one (1) constituent and proceeded to turn it into a non-existent attack on activist groups. :rolleyes:

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

Hahahaha. I’m not responsible for what you wrote. :rolleyes:

Hahahah! Rolleyes! This is fun!

[Ravenman]

@Bricker

Poor approval could rest on many factors that don’t involve being corrupt, though.

The original claim is that Blount, but not McCaskill, is seen as corrupt.

Is that a defensible claim?

I’m trying to be precise here: I don’t know the reasons for his poor popularity, but pointing out that he has won elections is not a refutation of the sentiment.

Let me rephrase why your argument isn’t apt: If someone claims that Trump is generally seen as a buffoon, such a claim is not shown false by pointing out that he won the election. It is very reasonable to believe that he could both be a buffoon and won the election.

And let me rephrase my rephrasing: your logic depends on an implicit assumption that Americans could never vote for someone who they think is corrupt. I don’t think that is a reasonable assumption.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

Your outline did not lay out the rational basis test that is mandated for “class of one” analysis or explain how you believed the cease and desist letter would fail to satisfy the rational basis test.

I would counter that you haven’t established the rational basis test is the applicable standard here. This isn’t an employment claim. The right to petition, as I have pointed out, is explicitly guaranteed in the First Amendment. If it’s a fundamental right then the standard would be strict or intermediate scrutiny.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

I would counter that you haven’t established the rational basis test is the applicable standard here. This isn’t an employment claim. The right to petition, as I have pointed out, is explicitly guaranteed in the First Amendment. If it’s a fundamental right then the standard would be strict or intermediate scrutiny.

For class-of-one claims the standard is rational basis, as your own cites laid out.

[foolsguinea]

@Bricker

Poor approval could rest on many factors that don’t involve being corrupt, though.

The original claim is that Blount, but not McCaskill, is seen as corrupt.

Is that a defensible claim?

Don’t drag Roy Blount into this. Completely different guy.

Look, Roy Blunt’s base is in southern Missouri. I honestly think most of the people who voted for him are unaware of his reputation among political nerds and/or don’t see it as a negative. They’ll say that he’s experienced, he’s a Christian, he’s one of us, and an alternative might be no better. Some voters see corruption as a positive around here; they think it means one is powerful. Some see it as an* inevitability.*

But observers in Washington know him as the guy who married a lobbyist for Altria, and takes a lot of energy company money. I suppose “widely seen” is a poor choice of words, which means I’m relieved that I didn’t say that:

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
my GOP Senator is seen as very right-wing, very unlikely to turn on the party, and highly corrupt.
[/QUOTE]
He is seen that way, in the context of the pre-hijack conversation, by the sort of person who calls to complain about Trump. You know, Democrats.

[Bricker]

@foolsguinea

I suppose “widely seen” is a poor choice of words, which means I’m relieved that I didn’t say that

And I’m relieved I didn’t attribute that quote to you.

He is seen that way, in the context of the pre-hijack conversation, by the sort of person who calls to complain about Trump. You know, Democrats.

Agreed.But I think that clarification is a valuable one.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

For class-of-one claims the standard is rational basis, as your own cites laid out.

Olech involved public utilities and Engquist involved public employment. Neither of those is a fundamental right.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

Olech involved public utilities and Engquist involved public employment. Neither of those is a fundamental right.

Yes. And again, Engquist stands for the proposition that the doctrine simply doesn’t apply to public employment, rather than a finding that it does apply but that the rational basis test was met.

But we’re left with one case, which isn’t on point, and your argument is essentially that courts might adopt the reasoning and apply it here?

In my view, you’re completely and utterly wrong if you believe there is any reasonable chance of such a finding. Just wrong.