U.S. Politics - no more cakes

[FuzzydaBear]

It's a good thing we govern based on the laws as they are then, and not based on how Republicans feel.

What an ignorant statement. One can say the exact same thing about how Democrats feel.

[TrackerNeil]

What an ignorant statement. One can say the exact same thing about how Democrats feel.

Support this, please.

[Fez]

Support this, please.

To be fair, every single time a Democratic AG refuses to defend a state gay marriage ban, that's exactly what's going on. If Governors want to submit briefs asking courts to strike down the bans, that's one thing, but one of the primary functions of AGs is to defend the state and its laws/rules/regulations in court. All of them.

[Inigima]

I am actually very bothered by that despite my strong support of gay marriage.

[The Fallen]

this story on the Scott Walker John Doe investigation is terrifying

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french

this is systemic, from Tom Delay to Ted Stevens

Frightening and terrifying ... when it happens to certain people from a certain demographic and certain class. Business as usual when it happens to those "other" people.

Everything mentioned, from 1st amendment rights violations to illegal search and seizure, gets justified when it happens to the poor and minorities, but condemned when it happens to "good people". Never mind that all people, good and bad, are presumed innocent.

Maybe now those folk can appreciate what the poor deal with on the regular and actually try to do something about it instead of pooh-pooing it.

[TrackerNeil]

To be fair, every single time a Democratic AG refuses to defend a state gay marriage ban, that's exactly what's going on. If Governors want to submit briefs asking courts to strike down the bans, that's one thing, but one of the primary functions of AGs is to defend the state and its laws/rules/regulations in court. All of them.

I'm not sure that's accurate, at least in the case of Pennsylvania, where the AG is entitled by law not to defend a law she thinks is unconstitutional. That's not some emotional whim; that's a legal assessment informed by education and experience.

[aceluby]

I'm not sure that's accurate, at least in the case of Pennsylvania, where the AG is entitled by law not to defend a law she thinks is unconstitutional. That's not some emotional whim; that's a legal assessment informed by education and experience.

Of course it's not accurate, if the sole job was to rubber stamp everything that could be simply looked up there would be zero point to the position.

[The Once and Future King]

Of course it's not accurate, if the sole job was to rubber stamp everything that could be simply looked up there would be zero point to the position.

Their Job is to defend legal challenges to the state. Not rubber stamp.

[Fez]

I'm not sure that's accurate, at least in the case of Pennsylvania, where the AG is entitled by law not to defend a law she thinks is unconstitutional. That's not some emotional whim; that's a legal assessment informed by education and experience.

Maybe PA gives that exemption, but most states do not. And even if there are states that allow AGs to not defend laws in court, they are always still required to enforce them while they are on the books. But quite a few Democratic AGs have not.

Of course it's not accurate, if the sole job was to rubber stamp everything that could be simply looked up there would be zero point to the position.

Of course it is. That's why the California AG couldn't reject that ballot measure that would require the state to kill gay people, because the state constitution requires the AG to develop ballot language for every measure that meets the (very weak) submission requirements. The AG is an administrative position, defend the state in court and enforce state laws, not a policy-one.

[TrackerNeil]

Maybe PA gives that exemption, but most states do not. And even if there are states that allow AGs to not defend laws in court, they are always still required to enforce them while they are on the books. But quite a few Democratic AGs have not.

I haven't heard about AGs refusing to enforce laws; can you cite examples?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Maybe PA gives that exemption, but most states do not. And even if there are states that allow AGs to not defend laws in court, they are always still required to enforce them while they are on the books. But quite a few Democratic AGs have not.

Of course it is. That's why the California AG couldn't reject that ballot measure that would require the state to kill gay people, because the state constitution requires the AG to develop ballot language for every measure that meets the (very weak) submission requirements. The AG is an administrative position, defend the state in court and enforce state laws, not a policy-one.

The Office of the Attorney General certainly has 'administrative functions,' but I don't see that it makes any sense to say that the Office of Attorney General or the position of Attorney General is an 'administrative position.' Every office in every branch of government is going to have some administrative functions, but that doesn't make the position, in toto, merely administrative. Litigating legal cases is clearly not, in and of itself, an administrative function.

In any case, I just stumbled across a brand new article from the Yale Law Journal on whether Attorneys General have an actual, legal obligation to defend the validity of state laws. According to the summary, it depends on the state, and there are three 'types' of laws governing the "duty to defend" for Attorneys General. I might actually read the article later tonight if I have trouble falling asleep tonight, but I thought I'd post it since it's probably the best answer anyone can give on this topic.

[Fez]

I haven't heard about AGs refusing to enforce laws; can you cite examples?

I say articles saying that, but upon further investigation they were using the word 'enforce' to mean 'defend in court,' so I withdraw that statement.

The Office of the Attorney General certainly has 'administrative functions,' but I don't see that it makes any sense to say that the Office of Attorney General or the position of Attorney General is an 'administrative position.' Every office in every branch of government is going to have some administrative functions, but that doesn't make the position, in toto, merely administrative. Litigating legal cases is clearly not, in and of itself, an administrative function.

In any case, I just stumbled across a brand new article from the Yale Law Journal on whether Attorneys General have an actual, legal obligation to defend the validity of state laws. According to the summary, it depends on the state, and there are three 'types' of laws governing the "duty to defend" for Attorneys General. I might actually read the article later tonight if I have trouble falling asleep tonight, but I thought I'd post it since it's probably the best answer anyone can give on this topic.

It depends on how you define an administrative function. To me, everything a government does that isn't legislative or executive (as in, executive orders/directives) is administrative. And so I'd say that litigating cases is absolutely an administrative function, because its clearly not legislative or executive.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I say articles saying that, but upon further investigation they were using the word 'enforce' to mean 'defend in court,' so I withdraw that statement.

It depends on how you define an administrative function. To me, everything a government does that isn't legislative or executive (as in, executive orders/directives) is administrative. And so I'd say that litigating cases is absolutely an administrative function, because its clearly not legislative or executive.

I didn't realize that the three branches of government were the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the administrative branch! If only there was a fourth branch of government where we might more properly classify the litigation of court cases in front of judges.

[Commodore]

Frightening and terrifying ... when it happens to certain people from a certain demographic and certain class. Business as usual when it happens to those "other" people.

Everything mentioned, from 1st amendment rights violations to illegal search and seizure, gets justified when it happens to the poor and minorities, but condemned when it happens to "good people". Never mind that all people, good and bad, are presumed innocent.

Maybe now those folk can appreciate what the poor deal with on the regular and actually try to do something about it instead of pooh-pooing it.

well this is about law enforcement resources deployed against people because of their political persuasion

Bob Menendez is another example, although it looks like they actually have something on him (why they chose to pursue it is another matter).

Whereas we all know there is no possibility of Hillary Clinton ever being prosecuted for deleting government records, or advancing policy in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. She is too big to ever fail.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

well this is about law enforcement resources deployed against people because of their political persuasion

Bob Menendez is another example, although it looks like they actually have something on him (why they chose to pursue it is another matter).

Whereas we all know there is no possibility of Hillary Clinton ever being prosecuted for deleting government records, or advancing policy in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. She is too big to ever fail.

No, it's about law enforcement deployed against people of your political persuasion. That's clearly what you have a problem with. It's wrong when it's Tom DeLay or Ted Stevens, but, oh, they've actually got something on Bob Menendez. And you foam at the mouth over any allegation against the Clintons, declaring based on nothing that the only reason they're not prosecuted is because they're 'too big to fail'- though what the fuck that means when applied to politicians is a total mystery.

[Fez]

I didn't realize that the three branches of government were the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the administrative branch! If only there was a fourth branch of government where we might more properly classify the litigation of court cases in front of judges.

Are you arguing that the Office of the Attorney General is part of the judicial branch of government rather than the executive branch*?

*which is mostly administrative, not executive, despite the name.

ETA: There's a reason its called the Obama administration, the Cuomo administration, the Jindal administration, etc. Most of the what the executive branch does is administrative; and I don't mean in the sense of 'administrative assistant,' I mean in the sense of administering the functions of government.

[awesome possum]

To be fair, I doubt Commodore knows what it means either, but it sure sounded catchy when Rush said it on his show.

Here's another head-scratcher. A group of 100 conservative lawyers filed a motion at the Supreme Court stating that gay marriage will cause approximately 900,000 abortions over the next 30 years.

Leading the charge is lawyer and former Antonin Scalia law clerk Gene Schaerr, who summarized the argument in a recent piece for the Heritage Foundation.

It goes something like this: same-sex marriage "undermines" traditional marriage, which leads to lower marriage rates. And lower marriage rates mean more abortions, because unmarried women get more abortions than married women do. This represents "a short and simple causal chain that the Supreme Court would be wise not to set in motion," according to Schaerr.

The problem, however, is that that chain of logic does not prove causality--and Schaerr freely admits this. “It is still too new to do a rigorous causation analysis using statistical methods,” he told the Post's Dana Millbank. “The brief doesn’t even attempt to say conclusively that this reduction in marriage rates has been the result of adopting same-sex marriage.”

This is one of those, "I can't even" moments, because I can't even understand where the idiotic logic in this comes from... I mean, beyond a not-so-closeted bit of hateful bigotry from some very-closeted conservatives.

[The Fallen]

well this is about law enforcement resources deployed against people because of their political persuasion

I agree that political retribution is bad, but intimidation and unfairness is the same.

Hopefully these guys can successfully sue.

Bob Menendez is another example, although it looks like they actually have something on him (why they chose to pursue it is another matter).

Whereas we all know there is no possibility of Hillary Clinton ever being prosecuted for deleting government records, or advancing policy in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. She is too big to ever fail.

The emails I had a problem with on principle, although Republicans are just fishing with all their investigations of Obama.

With regards to the "pay to play" allegations, we'll have to wait and see what actually happened. Although this seems to be par for the course in the form of pork, it's probably different if we're talking foreign governments or corporations. But again, let's see what actually transpired and how severe it was before we start the witch hunt. And it's not like Republicans *cough(Bushes)cough* aren't old hands at this kind of stuff.

[Sir Thursday]

It's not often you see opinions like this from the Republican side of the aisle: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/opinion/double-the-nih-budget.html

Double the N.I.H. Budget

By NEWT GINGRICH

:

:

Even as we’ve let financing for basic scientific and medical research stagnate, government spending on health care has grown significantly. That should trouble every fiscal conservative. As a conservative myself, I’m often skeptical of government “investments.” But when it comes to breakthroughs that could cure — not just treat — the most expensive diseases, government is unique. It alone can bring the necessary resources to bear. (The federal government funds roughly a third of all medical research in the United States.) And it is ultimately on the hook for the costs of illness. It’s irresponsible and shortsighted, not prudent, to let financing for basic research dwindle.

Thoughts? Seems like a broadly positive idea to me, although I guess if combined with the general pressures exerted by the Republican party on the budget overall might lead to cuts in other areas that can ill afford it...

ST

[Inigima]

I mean, it would be nice if Newt's bros hadn't fucked up federal research spending before suggesting unfucking a particular corner of it, but yes, the NIH needs more money.