US Politics: Another Government Shutdown Looms

[Lord Mord]

It's not:

I don't know if in the particular instance I'm at all troubled, but the principle involved gives me some pause. What, exactly, is the difference between the excuse offered in this case on the one hand, and on the other saying that he was "unaware of or untrained in" the law?

Are we saying it is possible to be aware of and trained in the law and to still execute it in a way the text plainly disallows? How is that not contradictory?

[SkynJay]

It amuses me when libertarian-esque right-wingers express some form of support for the embargo on Cuba,

Makes perfect sense to me. The Cubans did the worst of the worst in the modern right's mind- took something from the richest of Americans.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I don't know if in the particular instance I'm at all troubled, but the principle involved gives me some pause. What, exactly, is the difference between the excuse offered in this case on the one hand, and on the other saying that he was "unaware of or untrained in" the law?

Are we saying it is possible to be aware of and trained in the law and to still execute it in a way the text plainly disallows? How is that not contradictory?

The difference is in objective reasonableness of the misread of law. So in this case the court found the statute somewhat vague, and held that it was objectively reasonable to conclude that it required all tail lights to be in working order rather than just one (that description might be slightly off, but that's the gist). The law was not plainly stated, and the state courts had never spoken on the issue up until now. Since the issue has been clarified and ruled on, it would no longer be objectively reasonable to conclude that all tail lights have to be in working order under the law.

We went over it in the police thread, starting here, with more quotes from the decision.

[TrackerNeil]

Ted Cruz keeps on benefiting the left.

I confess I'd not done my homework on this. I really thought that Obama had been way behind on judicial appointments, but now it appears that he's actually doing quite alright on that front.

His track record for nominating people wasn't great, it's true, but since Reid changed the filibuster rules things seem to be working out better.

Do you notice that we're barely a month out from the election and the news is no longer Republican triumph but Democratic boldness? Immigration, engagement with Cuba, all these judges...it's a riot.

[awesome possum]

Ole Jebby-Poo has a monkey on his back that he might have forgotten about in his desire to be president.

In his announcement Tuesday that he would explore a 2016 presidential bid, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) promised to focus on “ideas and policies that will expand opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.” But he made no mention of his most controversial act during his two terms in office: his attempts to take custody of Terri Schiavo and overrule her husband Michael’s decision to remove her feeding tube, fifteen years after cardiac arrest had left her in a vegetative state.

ThinkProgress spoke with Michael Schiavo and the attorney who represented him in the matter, George Felos, about Bush’s presidential candidacy. Both expressed concern that Bush’s record was one of government interference and opposing individual liberty.

“If you want a government that’s gonna intrude on your life, enforce their personal views on you, then I guess Jeb Bush is your man,” Schiavo explained, adding, “We really don’t need another Bush in office.”

Felos described Bush’s actions interference in Schiavo case as, “An egregious example of the fat hand of government inserting itself into a family’s medical decision and the obtrusive hand of government trying to override their decision.”

I hope Schiavo tries to stay in the spotlight if Jeb does run. Remind the country how much "small-government conservatives" love to stick their hands in the personal affairs of private citizens.

And in pretty godsdamned hilarious news, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (as well as atheist groups and pagans) now get to be represented in government holiday displays, thanks to the Supreme Court's attempts to endorse Christianity as the most gorgeous girl at the ball. And the Satanic Church is right behind them.

First a Christian group erected a nativity scene that endorsed Christianity. Then an atheist group hung awinter solstice banner celebrating the Bill of Rights and freedom from religion. Inspired, another atheist built a Festivus pole made of beer cans, and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster added a small pile of holy noodles to the capitol’s halls.

Under current First Amendment law, the capitol had no ability to turn down any of these groups; once the government opened the door to one religion, it had to let them all in. But when the Satanic Temple applied to erect a display featuring an angel falling into a pit of fire, officials turned it down. The display, they explained, was “grossly offensive during the holiday season,” and was barred from display in the capitol. Now, with Christmas around the corner, the temple is reapplying, asserting its constitutional right to include its display alongside the others. And this time, it’s bringing a legal team.

[Guy Kilmore]

That's kind of Funny AP. I wonder though if they are say "no" not because it is the Satanic Temple, but because if shows someone being burned in the pit of fire which is a pretty violent display. Like if the church wanted to put up a Santa Devil statue or something, I wonder if there would have been objections.

[DanteGabriel]

That's kind of Funny AP. I wonder though if they are say "no" not because it is the Satanic Temple, but because if shows someone being burned in the pit of fire which is a pretty violent display. Like if the church wanted to put up a Santa Devil statue or something, I wonder if there would have been objections.

Maybe they should start taking down those representations of that dude they nailed to a tree too.

[Frog Eater]

I would like to see Schiavo advertisements of the swift boat variety. With different men who's wives are in a vegetative state saying "I just don't trust Jeb Bush to keep his hands off my wife"

That commercial played ad naseum would become all anyone knew about Jeb Bush and could be taken way out of context

[TrackerNeil]

Although I'd like to think the Schiavo mess could negatively impact Jeb, I doubt it. That news is old and cold, and even Americans who opposed what Republicans did probably won't care any more.

[awesome possum]

Although I'd like to think the Schiavo mess could negatively impact Jeb, I doubt it. That news is old and cold, and even Americans who opposed what Republicans did probably won't care any more.

Same thing could have been said about, as Frog Eater mentioned, Swift Boats. All it takes is some national press and a couple commercials and it's right back in the spotlight. And what delicious irony it would be if George's big brother gets swift boated out of a national election.

[all swedes are racist]

Also, the whole "government interference" thing only has so much mileage beyond memetic rallying point. I mean, how's that whole thing working for say, Planned Parenthood?

[Guy Kilmore]

Maybe they should start taking down those representations of that dude they nailed to a tree too.

Fair point. I am unsure though that is what they have up as their Holiday display though, but I don't really know.

[TrackerNeil]

Same thing could have been said about, as Frog Eater mentioned, Swift Boats. All it takes is some national press and a couple commercials and it's right back in the spotlight. And what delicious irony it would be if George's big brother gets swift boated out of a national election.

Maybe, but I'm skeptical. Honestly, I don't even know if the Swift Boats nonsense really swayed any votes; are there data on that? In any case, I doubt if many people planning to vote Republican are going to be turned away by the Schiavo business, which in 2016 will be more than ten years old. Anyone younger than, say, 25 probably won't even know what happened.

[Fez]

Rand Paul has taken the position on Cuba that I thought Jeb Bush would (although I'm not surprised by Paul; I just thought they'd both say it).

"The 50-year embargo just hasn't worked," Paul said. "If the goal is regime change, it sure doesn't seem to be working and probably it punishes the people more than the regime because the regime can blame the embargo for hardship.

"In the end, I think opening up Cuba is probably a good idea," he said.

[Swordfish]

I'm into it.

Cuba seems like a decent vacation spot.....

[TrackerNeil]

Rand Paul has taken the position on Cuba that I thought Jeb Bush would (although I'm not surprised by Paul; I just thought they'd both say it).

Well, you've got to figure than most Republicans eyeing the White House are being very careful not to agree with Obama on anything, lest they later be accused of palling around with the Kenyan.

Hmm...maybe the Big O should come out in favor of torture, so that Republicans are sure to line up against it.

[sToNED_CAT]

Well, the main problem is not that Obama started the normalization of relationship with Cuba, the problem is he got absolutely no concessions from them. There are pretty hardcore guys on the other side of aisle who have a lot of unreasonable demands (like compensating all Cuban exiles far confiscated property and kicking Castros out), but he should have gotten at least something, even if just symbolic promise of political reforms. He seems to be really master in deals where the other side doesn't need to give anything up (like in China few weeks ago).

Also for people who claim that lifting embargo and increased trade and tourism would lead to more open, prosperous and free Cuban society, all because of American capital, think again. There already is Western capital on island just not American one. Canadians and Europeans have no embargo against Cuba, millions of western tourists visit the country each year and the communist party grip on power has not relaxed a bit. Why some folks think things are going to change if USA do the same is mystery to me.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Well, the main problem is not that Obama started the normalization of relationship with Cuba, the problem is he got absolutely no concessions from them. There are pretty hardcore guys on the other side of aisle who have a lot of unreasonable demands (like compensating all Cuban exiles far confiscated property and kicking Castros out), but he should have gotten at least something, even if just symbolic promise of political reforms. He seems to be really master in deals where the other side doesn't need to give anything up (like in China few weeks ago).

Also for people who claim that lifting embargo and increased trade and tourism would lead to more open, prosperous and free Cuban society, all because of American capital, think again. There already is Western capital on island just not American one. Canadians and Europeans have no embargo against Cuba, millions of western tourists visit the country each year and the communist party grip on power has not relaxed a bit. Why some folks think things are going to change if USA do the same is mystery to me.

What kind of 'concessions' were you expecting? Cuba becoming the 51st state? This entire post reads like sour grapes. If this went down under a Repub pres you'd be loving it.

Eta: there's Western capital, and then there's US dollars. Aren't you guys all about American exceptionalism?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/americas/us-cuba-relations.html?_r=0

The United States will ease restrictions on remittances, travel and banking, while Cuba will allow more Internet access and release 53 Cubans identified as political prisoners by the United States. Although the embargo will remain in place, the president called for an “honest and serious debate about lifting” it, which would require an act of Congress.

[sToNED_CAT]

Eta: there's Western capital, and then there's US dollars. Aren't you guys all about American exceptionalism?

Just a reminder that the belief that increased trade = more political freedoms might be pretty naive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/americas/us-cuba-relations.html?_r=0

Like I said, he got nothing substantial, just few facesavers. Those 53 prisoners seem to be significant, until you realize, that Cuba released hundreds just in memory of pope's visit in past and they were often rearrested or in better case exiled in next years anyway. The value of Obama's action for Cubans is far more than few dozen prisoners, especially now, when Venezuela, that plays huge role in keeping Castros afloat, is near economic collapse.