Kagan, Sotomayer Not Legitimate Members of Supreme Court

June 27, 2015 | Uncle Sham

[Fantasywriter]

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

[bkepley]

Some people can’t handle a difference of opinion and think they can force others to shut up.

[Lazamataz]

No, he’s an actual a-hole.

[Lazamataz]

You are an a-hole.

[Lazamataz]

Every time we begin the run up to an election, it seems tensions begin to mount and the candidate threads become a bit overheated. I wish we could remember that in most cases we are talking to fellow conservatives. A modicum of respect would go a long way.

I was respectful! I didn't call him an a-hole S.O.B.!

[Fantasywriter]

Just for the record, there are some non-conservatives on this thread. I hope they are not getting too much pleasure out of this conservative on conservative dust up.

[DiogenesLamp]

What makes you think those stats are screwed up? Is it just that only 70 Hawaiian births in 1961 were to nonresidents seems suspiciously low? Well, it was 88 in 1960 (0.51%) and only 384 in 2002 (2%), despite the vast increase in transportation options since then. Either this process of reporting nonresident births as resident births has continued into the 2000s, or just not that many late-stage pregnant women get on a plane or boat for Hawaii.

Or Hawaii is still masking foreign births by claiming them as domestic.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think the problem is DL thinks the term non-resident means not a resident of the US. But the Table in the Vital Statistic manuals says it means not a resident of the county where the birth was registered.

Not at all. The problem is that it appears as though Hawaii was claiming far more "resident" births than would be reasonable, and are likely disguising foreign births by claiming them as "resident."

[4Zoltan]

Than why don’t their numbers reflect that?

1940
Hawaii live births - 9,414
1941
Hawaii live births - 10,116
1942
Hawaii live births - 10,422
1943
Hawaii live births - 11,831
1944
Hawaii live births - 12,494
1945
Hawaii live births - 12,305
1946
Hawaii live births - 12,808
1947
Hawaii live births - 14,592
1948
Hawaii live births - 14,463
1949
Hawaii live births - 14,150
1950
Hawaii live births - 14,054
1951
Hawaii live births - 14,446
1952
Hawaii live births - 15,576
1953
Hawaii live births - 16,108
1954
Hawaii live births - 16,202
1955
Hawaii live births - 16,319
1956
Hawaii live births - 17,106
1957
Hawaii live births - 17,060
1958
Hawaii live births - 16,708
1959
Hawaii live births - 17,100
1960
Hawaii live births - 17,202
1961
Hawaii live births - 17,578
1962
Hawaii live births - 17,982

And if we look again at your table but this time for Alaska, the live births are 7502 and to non-resident, 568. If we look at Table 2-1 from the 1961 Vital Records there is additional information. The total births is still 7502 but non-resident births is broken into intra-state residents (558) and out-of-state residents (10).

So for Alaska only 10 women made the trip from the lower 48 states up to Alaska to have their babies. Hawaii only had 20 such births.

Yes, DL the long distance from the mainland to the Hawaiian islands is why the non-resident births in Hawaii are so low.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, DL the long distance from the mainland to the Hawaiian islands is why the non-resident births in Hawaii are so low.

That is certainly a partial explanation, but it is not necessarily a total explanation. Apart from that, I like the fact I seem to make you go to so much trouble to refute a casual point.

This seemingly means a lot more to you than it does to me. :)

[4Zoltan]

“Hawaii was claiming far more “resident” births than would be reasonable, and are likely disguising foreign births by claiming them as “resident.”

But there is no need to list them as “resident”, listing them as non-resident has the same effect - birth in the US and US citizenship. They could list them as intra-state non-residents.

Again for the third time - all of the numbers in your table and in the USDH tables are for births that occurred in the US both resident and non-resident (non-resident means intra-state and out-of-state residents of the US). There are no foreign births included in the tables.

Hawaii’s incremental growth in the live births appears related to the growth in population.

1940 - 422,770
1950 - 499,794
1960 - 632,772

[4Zoltan]

“I like the fact I seem to make you go to so much trouble to refute a casual point.”

Actually there’s not much work involved if you know how to do basic research. Copy and pasting from existing tables is relatively easy.

BTW, you were the one who brought up the whole Hawaii hands out BCs like lollipops. And then could not substantiate the claim.

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually there’s not much work involved if you know how to do basic research. Copy and pasting from existing tables is relatively easy.

You have to seek them out and look them up. You have to analyze the data to see if it's relevant, and you have to contemplate how you intend to present it.

Even at that, you don't really succeed in making your point.

BTW, you were the one who brought up the whole Hawaii hands out BCs like lollipops.

I said I have read numerous articles that make this claim, and that I find it believable.

And then could not substantiate the claim.

I'm not terribly concerned if I convince you or not, and i'm certainly not interested in putting much work into the effort. At this point, this discussion is like debating how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin.

At this point, you are certainly putting a lot more effort into it than I have any intentions of doing.

[4Zoltan]

Not really - all of the info is linked on a single page and with a fast connection pops up almost instantaneously.

For example the 1940 to 1961 live birth comes from a single table. cut and paste simple.

Analysis of the data?

I simply have cut and pasted the raw data, the table headings speak for themselves.

“I said I have read numerous articles..”

Which you preceded by saying Hawaii gives BCs to anyone and other states don’t. And presented a table that makes a false claim.

BTW - the “I said I have read numerous articles” is more unsubstantiated claims.

“I’m not terribly concerned if I convince you or not,”

Oh, I know I won’t convince you. It is enough to see you backtrack on the Hawaii birth certificate stuff. But till I know that in the future you will again present that bogus table and claim it says something it does not.

[4Zoltan]

One final thought - I do agree with on one point. This discuss like the discuss of the meaning of the NBC clause is both casual and trivial to the rest of the world and both are exactly like “debating how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin.”

Both issues they involve are longtime settled.

[Ladysforest]

“Polk crosschecked their info, so even if SAD lied to a canvasser the lie would not have made it into the publication.”

Just getting around to logging on today, and saw this. I never, in all of my research with the Polks, was able to find that they crosschecked or verified any of the info on individuals.

It was primarily done by canvas, and as to “Polk” following up to verify the provided info, I never found any suggestion of that. If you have such info please provide a link so that I can add it to my post on the obama related Polk entries. Thanks.