US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

[Guy Kilmore]

6 hours ago, Swordfish said:

I think the natural progression here is that since a disproportionate number of the homeless are minorities, this proves that the council is stocked with racists?

 

Interestingly the largest demographic of homeless individuals usually tend to be white males.  At least in the midwest that is usually the biggest group.

In LA, it goes Hispanics, then Whites.

http://www.laalmanac.com/social/so14.htm

[MerenthaClone]

13 hours ago, R'hllors Red Lobster said:

Frankly, we just don't have all the information here. You're all jumping to conclusions. It's too early to make that kind of judgement. 

He's being obnoxiously facetious.  

[lokisnow]

chart book on the disaster of welfare reform in the 90s

http://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/chart-book-tanf-at-19

A good example of why I am always be suspicious about cooperating with republicans particularly on the safety net.

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

chart book on the disaster of welfare reform in the 90s

http://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/chart-book-tanf-at-19

A good example of why I am always be suspicious about cooperating with republicans particularly on the safety net.

What is interesting to me about that is that during the Clinton years things were actually pretty good with TANF. As the article indicates, after 2000 is where the problems hit - and a lot of that had to do with the states not keeping up with inflation and not giving it a lot of resources. 

I'm not saying that it is a good policy - but rather I think that a lot of its failure has to do with state and local use of it being eroded due to republican intervention. 

[lokisnow]

Two great articles on the Supreme Court, first game theory shows how Scalia improved the courts liberal thinking:

http://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2016/2/17/11018994/game-theory-scalia-liberal

And an analysis of the pros and cons of lifetime appoint,nets versus 18 year appointments

http://qz.com/624925/the-supreme-courts-lifetime-appointments-are-ineffective-and-borderline-autocratic/

[lokisnow]

What is interesting to me about that is that during the Clinton years things were actually pretty good with TANF. As the article indicates, after 2000 is where the problems hit - and a lot of that had to do with the states not keeping up with inflation and not giving it a lot of resources. 

I'm not saying that it is a good policy - but rather I think that a lot of its failure has to do with state and local use of it being eroded due to republican intervention. 

Indeed it is definitive proof that block granting Medicaid is the worst possible compromise liberals could agree to as long term it would play out akin to the tanf disaster illustrated by these charts.

[Shryke]

10 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Indeed it is definitive proof that block granting Medicaid is the worst possible compromise liberals could agree to as long term it would play out akin to the tanf disaster illustrated by these charts.

Unfortunately the structure of the american government means it's always open to policy turning to complete shit because alot of important powers can end up devolved to state governments who can historically be incredibly shitty on social services for various terrible reasons.

[TerraPrime]

17 minutes ago, Shryke said:

state governments who can historically be incredibly shitty on social services for various terrible reasons.

lol understatement much?

[Shryke]

3 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

lol understatement much?

I'm becoming subtle in my old age.

[Paladin of Ice]

That remind me of something: Alabama is moving to block Birmingham's vote to increase the minimum wage.

The largest city in Alabama, Birmingham first voted to lift pay last August. According to the original bill, the first phase of the wage hike would have taken effect in July 2016, lifting the pay floor to $8.50. It would reached $10.10 an hour in July 2017.

But then state lawmakers stepped in: Earlier this month, Rep. David Faulkner, a Republican from the wealthy Birmingham suburb of Mountain Brook, introduced legislation that would prevent cities from enacting their own minimum wage rates. Faulkner did not respond to a request for comment.

The same day Faulkner introduced his bill, Birmingham city council members passed their own law that advanced the first phase-in of the city’s wage hike to March 1. The idea: Getting the pay raise in place before the state’s law takes effect would give the city’s minimum wage better legal standing.

The drama has only ramped up further: Faulkner’s bill passed the House last week and a Senate vote is expected as early as Thursday. Meanwhile, Birmingham lawmakers are still trying to stay one step ahead of their counterparts in Montgomery, the state capital. On Tuesday, the city council passed yet another bill, slating the entire $10.10 pay hike for Wednesday. It takes effect as soon as the mayor signs the bill.

It may still take some time for the legal smoke to clear: Even if the city manages to get its law on the books first, the state of Alabama likely has the advantage in court, according to legal experts. The state attorney general, a Republican, has criticized Birmingham’s recent moves and said businesses need a reasonable amount of time to comply with the law. Court battles are likely.

The Business Council of Alabama is one of the biggest supporters of Faulkner’s bill. CEO William Canary said legislators are only acting in the best interest of the state.

Translation: local government is only good as long as it's precisely as local as Republican politicians want it. State government bucking the feds is the right of all Americans. City government bucking the state requires explanation of how those people just don't know the right thing and need it explained to them from on high.

[Shryke]

Senate Republicans are really not eager to try and defend their own behaviour over the SCOTUS vacancy:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-republicans-capable-embarrassment-after-all
 

Quote

 

On Tuesday, for example, reporters waited outside the Senate chamber, eager to speak to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) about the unfolding scandal. The New York Times reported that the Iowa Republican, upon leaving the chamber, “raised a binder to cover his face before hurriedly retreating.”
 
No “Profile in Courage” award for you, Chuck.
 
Of course, it’s not just the troubled Judiciary Committee chairman feeling uneasy about trying to defend the indefensible. The Huffington Post reported yesterday on the case of bashfulness that’s broken out among the Republican ranks.

As Democrats tried to raise the pressure on their recalcitrant colleagues on Thursday by accusing them of abandoning their responsibility to the Constitution, Republicans on Capitol Hill were ducking and dodging reporters’ questions on what’s shaping up to be one of the biggest battles in Washington.
 
Several senators ran away from The Huffington Post this week as we tried to ask if they thought a Supreme Court nominee should get a hearing.

You don’t need a lot of Capitol Hill experience to know confident senators don’t flee questions about an ongoing controversy.
 
But flee they did.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said she had to “go vote,” even though she could have talked as she walked to an elevator down the hall. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) didn’t even let HuffPost get the full question out before saying, “I don’t do hallway interviews.” Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said he had to “run to a meeting” and disappeared into an elevator. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) listened to the question and, with a blank look, said, “I’m not doing any interviews.” […]
 
Asked about his signature on a letter stating that Obama’s nominee shouldn’t get a hearing or a vote, [Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)] reiterated he did not wish to discuss the subject.
That’s just a sampling. Others were equally reluctant to defend their own party’s tactics.
 
It’s an unusual posture for the party. Indeed, most of the time, it seems Senate Republicans aren’t capable of embarrassment at all.
 
But that’s how ridiculous the GOP’s Supreme Court blockade is. We’ve finally seen a partisan tantrum so extreme that congressional Republicans themselves are reluctant to even try to defend it.

 

 

[BloodRider]

23 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Which pretty much makes them racists, yes?

Why else would someone execute a racist policy, if not because of racism?

Can you not think of any reason?  

If you can't think of a reason why are they therefore racist?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 1:06 PM, lokisnow said:

 

One of the things I find to be truly deplorable is the high percentage of veterans in the homeless population.

[all swedes are racist]

9 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

He's being obnoxiously facetious.  

Yeah, but so was I.

[Shryke]

I think this says everything about Scalia and the SCOTUS:

Quote

 

Dow Chemical was hoping the US Supreme Court would dismiss a $1.06 billion judgment against the company. But on Friday the company announced that it is settling the case for $835 million.

And the firm actually had an interesting reason why: It didn't think that things would go its way in light of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dow-chemical-settles-lawsuit-835-175842103.html

 

[lokisnow]

I think this says everything about Scalia and the SCOTUS:

 

Dow Chemical was hoping the US Supreme Court would dismiss a $1.06 billion judgment against the company. But on Friday the company announced that it is settling the case for $835 million.

And the firm actually had an interesting reason why: It didn't think that things would go its way in light of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dow-chemical-settles-lawsuit-835-175842103.html

 

Knowing scalia, the dow chemical guys were probably on the hunting trip with him talking up their case to him. Remember when he refused to recuse himself from cases with his hunting buddies?

[Ormond]

Susan Collins says any Supreme Court nominee of Obama's should be voted on by the Senate. She of course is the Republican senator most likely to take this position, but it's still good to see her being vocal about it.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/02/22/collins-breaks-ranks-with-republican-leaders-over-supreme-court-nominee/

 

 

[lokisnow]

She's also the only republican senator who would vote for an Obama nominee.

Procedural question if the judiciary committee refuses to consider the candidate, can a discharge petition be used to force a cloture vote on the candidate?

[Ormond]

Here's very recent data from PEW on the political preferences of Americans by religious denomination.

I think it's a bit misleading that PEW calls Anglicans "mainline" as in the USA "Anglicans" are the small group who broke away from the Episcopal church when they started ordaining women as priests. It is completely expected for them to skew more toward the Republicans than the other groups PEW calls "mainline".

My biggest personal surprises on this were that the Methodists still skew a bit Republican (which may have something to do with their being the "mainline" denomination that has the highest percentage of rural members), and that the Unitarians skew just as much toward the Democrats as the historically Black denominations and more so than the atheists.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/ft_16-02-22_religionpoliticalaffiliation_640px-2/

[Maithanet]

84/14 is actually more conservative than I would have expected for Unitarian Universalist.  I grew up in that church and I have only met one republican UU in my life (not to mention being explicitly pro gay marriage and anti-war).