USA Politics: Tea Party vs. the Establishment and other issues

[The onion wight]

Right, but what happens when opposition to the former (registration, licensing, regulations of any sort) claims that it's exactly the same as the latter (gun bans) and therefore unconstitutional and vile and part of an Agenda to grab everyone's guns? Because that's what the standard, ahem, political-speak is these days.

Do you have a position on the matter? I'm a licensed gun owner, in Australia we're not allowed to own semi automatic rifles or pistols and gun ownership has been severely restricted to the extent that only farmers and sports shooters own them. Having a gun for self defence is unheard of as all rifles must be stored in a gun locker at all times when not in use as part of the licensing conditions.

I mention all that for two reasons. The debate in the States reminds me a lot of what happened here post the Port Arthur shootings and yes although guns are not banned in Australia (there are actually more guns in circulation now than before the restrictions were brought in) my right to use a gun to defend my person has been removed.

[Wise Fool]

OW, my position is generally one of disgust and apathy. Disgust for the whole watering-the-tree-of-liberty side and apathy as far as changing gun laws either way.

WF,

I state that I believe they are wrong and strongly supect courts will agree with me.

Witchcraft!

[Fez]

Gotta admit, I'm surprised by this one.

Pennsylvania's governor says he won't appeal a court decision that struck down the state's gay marriage ban.

Gov. Tom Corbett's decision Wednesday means that same-sex marriage will remain legal in Pennsylvania, without the threat that a higher court will reinstate the ban.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge John Jones III struck down Pennsylvania's 1996 law banning recognition of gay marriage, calling it unconstitutional.

Corbett's decision goes against his political beliefs. He opposes same-sex marriage and supported thus-far unsuccessful efforts to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

But he says an appeal would be "extremely unlikely to succeed."

I thought dragging these decisions out was a basic requirement of GOP governors (except Sandoval, but the whole Nevada GOP has turned very apostate on social issues).

He must be truly desperate about his re-election campaign.

[TrackerNeil]

I thought dragging these decisions out was a basic requirement of GOP governors (except Sandoval, but the whole Nevada GOP has turned very apostate on social issues).

He must be truly desperate about his re-election campaign.

I was surprised myself, although maybe I should not have been. Polling shows that most Pennsylvanian's agree with the ruling, so it's not as if fruitless appeals will buy Corbett anything but trouble. With the fight over, voters in the Keystone State will have six months to forget all about it, which I suspect most will. There are a few conservative voters who will stay home, perhaps, but they aren't going to save the most unpopular governor in the nation.

[Ramsay Gimp]

As the board's appointed Rand Paul tracker, thought I should let you all know he is filibustering the nomination of David Barron to the US Court of Appeals

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2014/05/rand_paul_obama_nominee_david_barron_not_qualified_for_fed_bench

Harvard Law professor David Barron is a former acting assistant attorney general in the Obama administration. While in President Obama’s Office of Legal Counsel he wrote memos justifying the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen abroad.

Paul:

I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat. I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.

Say what you want about the filibuster itself, but I absolutely agree with the reasoning. We don't need another judge that will just give the Executive free reign in the name of "national security"

[1918me]

As the board's appointed Rand Paul tracker, thought I should let you all know he is filibustering the nomination of David Barron to the US Court of Appeals

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2014/05/rand_paul_obama_nominee_david_barron_not_qualified_for_fed_bench

Say what you want about the filibuster itself, but I absolutely agree with the reasoning. We don't need another judge that will just give the Executive free reign in the name of "national security"

I may not be much of a Rand Paul fan, but I can definitely agree with that sentiment.

[Inigima]

As the board's appointed Rand Paul tracker, thought I should let you all know he is filibustering the nomination of David Barron to the US Court of Appeals

Good.

[MerenthaClone]

Yeah I'm pretty okay with that one too.

[TrackerNeil]

Say what you want about the filibuster itself, but I absolutely agree with the reasoning. We don't need another judge that will just give the Executive free reign in the name of "national security"

I agree with the principle, but of course Paul himself is just engaging in a bit of legislative theatre. The instant a Republican occupies the White House, Rand Paul's objections to this exercise of national security authority will vanish like smoke. So he's hardly a credible standard-bearer for the cause.

That being said, it horrifies me that Americans can stand by and allow a president to unilaterally kill US citizens, at home or abroad, whom he judges to be enemy combatants (or whatever the term is we're using now). That's not a slippery slope; it's a precipitous drop.

[Mad Monkey]

I agree with the principle, but of course Paul himself is just engaging in a bit of legislative theatre. The instant a Republican occupies the White House, Rand Paul's objections to this exercise of national security authority will vanish like smoke. So he's hardly a credible standard-bearer for the cause.

It might not though. Rand Paul hasn't been around for very long; he might be the real deal in this regard. It might be legislative theater but at least he's trying. Congress has mostly abdicated its role in overseeing the executive branch (the closest we get are showy investigations like Benghazi which are or less just 2016 campaign ads masquerading as investigations). If Paul is even slightly nudging Congress in a better direction, even just symbolically, even hypocritically... it's better than nothing.

[TrackerNeil]

It might not though. Rand Paul hasn't been around for very long; he might be the real deal in this regard. It might be legislative theater but at least he's trying. Congress has mostly abdicated its role in overseeing the executive branch (the closest we get are showy investigations like Benghazi which are or less just 2016 campaign ads masquerading as investigations). If Paul is even slightly nudging Congress in a better direction, even just symbolically, even hypocritically... it's better than nothing.

Oh, believe me, I'll take help wherever I find it, but I like to keep in mind exactly whose help I'm accepting and how long I can count on it. Paul will abandon his principled stance as soon as there is a conservative president, but if we can make use of him in the meantime, I'm not opposed.

[Suttree]

I agree with the principle, but of course Paul himself is just engaging in a bit of legislative theatre. The instant a Republican occupies the White House, Rand Paul's objections to this exercise of national security authority will vanish like smoke. So he's hardly a credible standard-bearer for the cause.

Indeed...Robert Reich was spot on:

I spoke with Rand Paul today before his speech here on reining in the NSA and protecting privacy, which was received enthusiastically. He’s one of the few people in America who can get a standing ovation at the Conservative Political Action Committee and also at Berkeley. But Berkeley wouldn’t have been so welcoming had he mentioned his opposition to abortion even if a woman’s life is at stake, or his negative view of gay marriage. He’s a libertarian only when convenient. We talked vaguely about national politics and he told me how much he collaborated with Senate Democrats. I suggested he urge his Republican colleagues to do the same. Paul has the superficially pleasing demeanor of a velvet glove fit firmly around a right-wing extremist’s iron fist.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I mention all that for two reasons. The debate in the States reminds me a lot of what happened here post the Port Arthur shootings and yes although guns are not banned in Australia (there are actually more guns in circulation now than before the restrictions were brought in) my right to use a gun to defend my person has been removed.

Thanks for bringing your perspective to this. Goes to show that the NRA in the states is not paranoid

(for a similar example I would suggest American smoking laws. In the 60s I'm sure it was unthinkable that one day you couldn't even smoke in a bar, but that's where we are now in the Land of the Free. Give em an inch and they'll take a mile)

I agree with the principle, but of course Paul himself is just engaging in a bit of legislative theatre. The instant a Republican occupies the White House, Rand Paul's objections to this exercise of national security authority will vanish like smoke. So he's hardly a credible standard-bearer for the cause.

That being said, it horrifies me that Americans can stand by and allow a president to unilaterally kill US citizens, at home or abroad, whom he judges to be enemy combatants (or whatever the term is we're using now). That's not a slippery slope; it's a precipitous drop.

On the first part, I'm curious why you think so. Paul has not been shy about criticizing the Bush administration - during those years he even gave speeches for his dad saying Cheney invaded Iraq for Halliburton :laugh: Granted, Rand wasn't in office yet but his consistent harping makes me believe that he has genuine principles as far as civil liberties are concerned (to be clear I don't mean civil rights or social equality, I mean the protections from the government given by the Bill of Rights). For what it's worth he was also one of the only (perhaps the only, I can't remember) Senate Republicans that didn't support sabotaging Obama's deal with Iran

On the second part, here here :cheers: This can't be allowed to just become part of the new "way of doing things" - it's too dangerous. The Judiciary will be key to stopping such abuses, so it's crucial that they aren't manned by limpdicks afraid of challenging the Executive. Hopefully in a few years we look back at extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens under Obama the way we look at torture under Bush

[Lightysnake88]

Still not having an issue with a card carrying A-Qaeda member being killed in a military action, regardless of where he was born.

[Wise Fool]

Thanks for bringing your perspective to this. Goes to show that the NRA in the states is not paranoid

(for a similar example I would suggest American smoking laws. In the 60s I'm sure it was unthinkable that one day you couldn't even smoke in a bar, but that's where we are now in the Land of the Free. Give em an inch and they'll take a mile)

Yeah no, the NRA is paranoid. They're not afraid that guns will simply not be easily and conveniently accessible, or even banned, but that this is all part of a conspiracy to make the citizens defenseless in order that a tyrannical government can impose it's evil, socialist agenda. When The Onion Wight is being herded into FEMA-like concentration camps or whatever, then you could crow on about how the NRA is not at all paranoid.

Of course, you can and will do so regardless, but you'll be wrong. As usual.

And the cigarette smoking example is just stupid, and I say that as a heavy smoker. There are few things more hipster-douchebaggery than whining about how you can't smoke in a bar anymore and how smokers are a persecuted minority and wah freedom wah tree of liberty wah. Completely ridiculous. Yeah, over half a century ago it was unimaginable that you might not be able to smoke in a bar. As unimaginable as black people marrying white people. You're not helping yourself with this comparison, just revealing more of that traditional right-wing rosy lens view of the past as some sort of golden age that we ought to return to. (Just like - again - how religious fundamentalists all yearn for the past too, a past when religious organizations had more power, men were men and women were submissive and modest and virtuous or whatever. The Good Old Days.)

[Mad Monkey]

Still not having an issue with a card carrying A-Qaeda member being killed in a military action, regardless of where he was born.

I think the whole issue is murky because of the way the War on Terror is being waged. It's a weird amalgam of a military operation, against targets that are largely non-uniformed and unaffiliated with any enemy nation -- some of them are even citizens of our country. The enemies aren't soldiers, but they aren't really civilians either. If it was a conventional war, no one would bat an eye at the idea that the U.S. military would be targeting and killing enemy soldiers in the field of combat.

But it isn't a conventional war, which raises the question -- if the President can order the death of an American citizen anywhere without any kind of judicial process, what stops them from doing it to literally anyone they want? I mean, no one seriously thinks that Obama is going to hop into a car and go around picking people off D.C. Sniper-style, but the murky nature of U.S. anti-terrorism policies suggests that -- legally -- he could.

I don't think that anyone is really shedding tears for al-Awlaki, but you don't make laws that only work in extreme situations. Due process as a concept only works if it is applied evenly to everyone -- once you create a special category of, "obviously guilty, so why bother??" it creates the risk that this category will expand to vacuum up not just the "real baddies" that "everyone knows" are guilty but also people who might be guilty but we can't prove it, people that we didn't mean to kill but are now embarassing collateral damage, etc.

(I've also never really heard a coherent reason why these targeted assassinations can't go through a judicial process.)

[1918me]

Still not having an issue with a card carrying A-Qaeda member being killed in a military action, regardless of where he was born.

Well, regardless of whether or not they deserved it (probably did), does the fact that their right to due process was ignored mean nothing to you?

ETA: Ninja'd by Mad Monkey's more in-depth post.

[Shryke]

Well, regardless of whether or not they deserved it (probably did), does the fact that their right to due process was ignored mean nothing to you?

Not really. It's not like y'all have bothered to give it to anyone else.

The hypocrisy of the hand-wringing over this shit is astounding. As a non-American, I again find myself thinking you people should fuck the hell off with this "it's different cause he's american and special" shit.

[Mad Monkey]

There's some weirdness about non-citizens are treated under U.S. law, but it's important to acknowledge that the Constitution grants due process and equal protection to all persons under the U.S. flag, not just to citizens. In fact, if you look at the Constitution, you see that it's actually very careful in specifying rights that are for citizens only (such as the right to vote) and rights that cover all persons regardless of nationality. The fact that this principle has been disrespected in the past doesn't justify disrespecting today; appeals to hypocrisy aren't really a good argument for denying civil liberties to anyone, U.S. citizen or not.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Still not having an issue with a card carrying A-Qaeda member being killed in a military action, regardless of where he was born.

:bang:

So many assumptions to unpack.

-Why are you so confident that they are "card carrying" members of Al Qaeda? They showed you the card? Oh, of course, a government official said so and you just blindly believe them. So much for evidence, let alone proof.

-You realize we are talking about people not in military action? Read Paul's statement above - he explicitly says he opposes killing citizens "not in combat." The government is claiming the authority to kill an American citizen in his sleep if they want to

-If those accused of terrorism or treason are fair game for the government to murder without trial, why not any accused citizen? Why not just launch drone missiles at tax evaders, drug dealers, or Roman Polanksi?