Jump to content

U.S. Politics- SCOTUS 2: The Election Strikes Back


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Brevity.

 

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

You're probably right but it needs to change. 

Yes it will change. The only question is how bad it's going to get before it does change. We probably haven't seen the worst of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing can't help but mention.  I'm not a fan of Nate Silver - I think I've made it clear throughout my posting here that I think he ripped off our stuff and, at least somewhat, subverted it for his own means.  But everyone here seems to hold 538 in high regard.  Sometimes I read his chats, and here's an excerpt from the latest one:

Quote

natesilver: See, I disagree, because I think Trump’s accomplishments have been on the modest side.

Other than immigration, I tend to agree.  Interested in reactions from those that frequently quote either him or his site, yet have radically different viewpoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

Could there actually be a more noble reason for some Republican Senators to urge Mueller to hurry up?  

Without fully endorsing this it feels plausible to me at the same time.  Worried I'm thinking that just because it feels like a ray of hope and it's just wishful thinking.  

 

Not sure that's the adjective that comes to mind when I think of Mitch McConnell.

Noble.

For Republicans who aren’t still more interested in obstructing and killing the investigation than in protecting the country...

Bueller...? Bueller...? Bueller...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

Could there actually be a more noble reason for some Republican Senators to urge Mueller to hurry up?  

Without fully endorsing this it feels plausible to me at the same time.  Worried I'm thinking that just because it feels like a ray of hope and it's just wishful thinking.  

 

I think it is a terrible idea to rush it. And thinking we are getting rid of Trump fast is false hope. I do not expect impeachment to happen. We are in for a long slog. Things the investigation turns up are part of a long process of bleeding out Trump. That and elections will rid us of him, hopefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Border Patrol Accused of Giving Children Rotten Food and Undrinkable Water

https://www.thecut.com/2018/07/border-control-child-abuse.html

Quote

Girls held in the facility reported that they were forced to strip naked in front of the guards before showering. Along with physical abuse, children also describe verbal abuse, including one child who says he was called weak after telling Border Patrol officers his mother had been killed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

One thing can't help but mention.  I'm not a fan of Nate Silver - I think I've made it clear throughout my posting here that I think he ripped off our stuff and, at least somewhat, subverted it for his own means.  But everyone here seems to hold 538 in high regard.  Sometimes I read his chats, and here's an excerpt from the latest one:

Other than immigration, I tend to agree.  Interested in reactions from those that frequently quote either him or his site, yet have radically different viewpoints.

Per the topic of that discussion: would the USA and the world be better off today with President Romney in 2012 than President Obama?

87.5% sure we wouldn't have President Trump in 2016.

Per some of the discussion: Interesting the difference of opinion on how big of a deal SCOTUS picks are in the grand scheme of things. Which way you go on the importance of SCOTUS picks will be a big factor on whether you think Trumps' accomplishments have been modest thus far. A conservative-leaning court legalised gay marriage. It seems SCOTUS can make principled decisions consistent with the constitution regardless of ideological make up.

On the biggest liberal fear with Trump appointments (overturning Roe vs Wade), what are the constitutional arguments for overturning it? Surely it's up to congress to define human life, in terms of the constitutional right to life. Once that definition is in place then how can SCOTUS apply constitutional protections to something congress has defined (by omission) as not human? Are there other articles in the constitution that apply to abortion law?

Speaking from the perspective of someone connected to the USA through trade negotiation, market access and diplomatic relations I think Trump has accomplished quite a bit of harm. Though ironically Trump pulling out of TPP has allowed an improved agreement to be put together which benefits the other 11 countries and disadvantages the USA in the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

I'm still not quite clear on what happens should it be shut down

If the Democrats win control of Congress, they can try to get it started again via several mechanisms. If not, it will live on much as Hillary Clinton's email scandal where no formal charges were ever filed, but a substantial fraction of the population was quite confident of the worst.

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

On the biggest liberal fear with Trump appointments (overturning Roe vs Wade), what are the constitutional arguments for overturning it? Surely it's up to congress to define human life, in terms of the constitutional right to life. Once that definition is in place then how can SCOTUS apply constitutional protections to something congress has defined (by omission) as not human? Are there other articles in the constitution that apply to abortion law?

That's precisely the bone of contention: there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which explicitly mentions abortion so many conservatives believe that the court conjured up the rationale for that case from thin air. That said, I very much doubt there will be an overall revision of the policy on abortion -- they might nibble at the edges some more, but it's pretty well settled law.

What might change in a significant way is policy on discrimination against white and Asian Americans ("affirmative action", "disparate impact", "diversity", etc.). Kennedy has often been the deciding vote on cases regarding this and it's entirely possible that Kavanaugh will rule differently. Here's a hilariously hyperbolic article describing some of the ways this can matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Altherion said:

That's precisely the bone of contention: there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which explicitly mentions abortion so many conservatives believe that the court conjured up the rationale for that case from thin air. That said, I very much doubt there will be an overall revision of the policy on abortion -- they might nibble at the edges some more, but it's pretty well settled law.

Kavanaugh doesn't think so, and neither does Gorsuch. Chances are good that while Roe won't be explicitly overturned, states will effectively be able to ban abortion entirely. Things like 'you can only get an abortion in the first 4 weeks of pregnancy and within 24 hours of finding out' are almost certainly going to pass this court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Other than immigration, I tend to agree.  Interested in reactions from those that frequently quote either him or his site, yet have radically different viewpoints.

I greatly dislike Trump.  'Hate' is too strong of a word; for hatred is ultimately rooted in fear, and while fear can be useful, left unchecked it is ultimately self destructive.  This is evident with both the 'Trump Cult' itself and the more militant left types.  Still, at the risk of enraging the entire board...

First, there is a major, possibly deliberate misconception on how much of the right views Trumps actions, particularly in diplomacy.  What the left see's as wanton breaking of treaties and sowing global chaos, the right views as a negotiating tactic.  I noticed something all through the Obama tenure, something pointed out by boarders here:  The Democratic Party collectively does not understand salesmanship.  Time and again, they'd ask for the minimum they wanted; and the republicans would hammer that minimum down to mere scraps.  Complete idiocy. Instead, you OPEN the negotiations with extreme and outrageous demands and compromise from there. with My example is the junker cars I used to buy and sell: say I had one that was realistically worth maybe $1000.  But when I set out to sell said vehicle, I wouldn't ask for $1000, instead I'd ask for double that price.  Ridiculously high?  Yes.  But, when the negotiations began in earnest, I could afford to come down off that price - and maybe even get $1200 or $1400 for that vehicle.  Republicans UNDERSTAND this.  Much of their strategy (and Trumps) centers on this.  Democrats - and the left,, on the other hand, appear to be totally clueless about this basic principle.  Hence, they WILL get screwed over each and every time in negotiations - and have NOBODY but themselves to blame.  This basic ignorance shows up repeatedly in many of the posts here with the absurd fretting about this or that outrageous act of Trump or Congress.     

 

That said, there are some acts of Trump that I am not completely at odds with.

First, from the POV of many in the rural (west) and others who have had the misfortune to have dealings with it, the Federal Bureaucracy is way, way, overdue for serious pruning.  Remember the Bundy mess in Oregon (?) a few  years ago?  I strongly disagree with what they did - but what gets COMPLETELY ignored or ridiculed by the Left is that bunch spent YEARS trying to deal with the system properly, only to be met with massive arrogant incompetence each step of the way.  The acts they took were wrong, but so were the bureaucratic acts that drove them to that point.  More and more, this situation appears endemic within the entire bureaucracy.  This carries over into land use - construction of roads, mines, and oil drilling, among many other things.  Permit processes now take over a decade instead of a couple years - endless idiotic redundant reviews and studies and deliberations.  Triple check?  Fine.  Check twenty times between a dozen departments, each moving at glacial pace, and increase the cost by an order of magnitude - not fine.  Much of the time the bureaucracies chief objective is to protect and promote itself to the exclusion of all else. 

 

Then there is immigration.  My belief is that corporate America has been using illegal immigrants to artificially drive down wages for US citizens.  The illegals work for less money, making them preferable to hire.  Yes, they pay taxes and work jobs no one else will.  Yes, the overwhelming majority are law abiding types, often fleeing hellholes 'south of south.'  But that does not change the wage depression effect.  Libertarian Overlords luv illegal alien workers.  And yes, I loath Trumps policies and racism on this matter - but this situation festered over multiple decades with NOBODY attempting to enact a serious, comprehensive long term fix. What proposals there were, were ALWAYS along the lines of 'entered after this date' or 'brought in as a minor' or some such - patches, not true solutions. Say what else you will, Trump dragged the whole stinking mess out into the open. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

Was the implication on that Soros story related to Gillebrand and Franken that she was just using it as a #metoo moment for her own political positioning or that she actually saw him as a rival?

I read it as the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Triskjavikson said:

But consider that all cynicism aside there have been signs that the GOP Senate, for all they're doing with shit bills and shit judges, has quite possibly been protecting the Mueller investigation from Trump.  What that post I linked is suggesting is that these people might truly be boxed in but keeping open the one avenue that keeps Trump from becoming Emperor and keeps a line open to a place in the future where they could better afford to turn on him.

None of this is to excuse all the rest of their bullshit, certainly not the Turtle's.  

I think the GOP Senate has been protecting the Mueller investigation, but that doesn't mean they deserve any badge of nobility.  In the article you quoted the author states he's as cynical as anyone about GOP MCs.  Considering the piece is on the possibility they will actually vote for impeachment and conviction upon legitimate findings from Mueller, no, he most definitely is not.  The cynical, and realistic, expectation is that the GOP will obfuscate and pivot no matter what Mueller finds - as they've done for all of Trump's actions they privately abhor.  As long as Trump holds 90% approval among their constituency, that will continue to be the reality.

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

LOL.  :commie:

5 hours ago, Triskjavikson said:

Agreed unless there's a legit chance that it could be shut down completely.  

I'm still not quite clear on what happens should it be shut down...whether the DOJ continues it with other people, whether the findings up that point can still come out, whether NY state and continue some of it, etc...

If it gets shut down, yes, it'd just be reverted back to the FBI.  What their response in actually pursuing the investigation any further depends on the political context of such an action.  As in, if the Dems hold either chamber at the time, they may well pressure the DOJ to open another special counsel investigation, a la post-Saturday Night Massacre.  And, of course, they'd be holding their own investigations as well.  If the Dems don't take either chamber?  Mueller could fight it in court for awhile, but it'd almost certainly be fucked.

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Per the topic of that discussion: would the USA and the world be better off today with President Romney in 2012 than President Obama?

[...]

Though ironically Trump pulling out of TPP has allowed an improved agreement to be put together which benefits the other 11 countries and disadvantages the USA in the region.

Oh, interesting hypothetical!  So, assuming Scalia still dies at the same time, that's the big thing to consider.  Have to admit though, I'm hard-pressed to think of any exogenous events in Obama's second term that I'm truly concerned about Romney presiding over.  The big endogenous one is what happens to the ACA?  Abolishing it was a big part of Romney's campaign, and it hadn't fully been rolled out by that time, so that's a big ol' issue.

As to how Scalia's vacancy would have played out, one could argue if Romney wins in 2012, then the Dems hold/take back the Senate in 2014.  This would also mean Reid never abolished the filibuster for lower court nominations in 2013.  So would the Dems do what McConnell did and make the GOP wait for the 2016 election or would they cave?  It's usually good money to bet the Democrats cave.

Big thing politically though is how does this shape what's happening now and in 2020?  Does Romney win reelection in 2016?  He almost certainly would be facing Hillary, right?  If Hillary ends up winning, we're in the same disadvantageous position for the Senate and combating gerrymandering as the 538 chatters point out.  I think the backlash to Trump helps more in that regard than even if Romney wins reelection in 2016.  So, overall, I'd have to say no - even though Obama's second term was uneventful, most are.  I'll keep it.

Also, to the bolded, I don't think this is ironic inasmuch as it was obvious that was gonna happen and sucks for the US.  Thanks, Trump!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

First, there is a major, possibly deliberate misconception on how much of the right views Trumps actions, particularly in diplomacy.  What the left see's as wanton breaking of treaties and sowing global chaos, the right views as a negotiating tactic.  I noticed something all through the Obama tenure, something pointed out by boarders here:  The Democratic Party collectively does not understand salesmanship.  Time and again, they'd ask for the minimum they wanted; and the republicans would hammer that minimum down to mere scraps.  Complete idiocy. Instead, you OPEN the negotiations with extreme and outrageous demands and compromise from there. with My example is the junker cars I used to buy and sell: say I had one that was realistically worth maybe $1000.  But when I set out to sell said vehicle, I wouldn't ask for $1000, instead I'd ask for double that price.  Ridiculously high?  Yes.  But, when the negotiations began in earnest, I could afford to come down off that price - and maybe even get $1200 or $1400 for that vehicle.  Republicans UNDERSTAND this.  Much of their strategy (and Trumps) centers on this.  Democrats - and the left,, on the other hand, appear to be totally clueless about this basic principle.  Hence, they WILL get screwed over each and every time in negotiations - and have NOBODY but themselves to blame.  This basic ignorance shows up repeatedly in many of the posts here with the absurd fretting about this or that outrageous act of Trump or Congress.     

I think I have few fundamental problems with this.

1. I think we have all had friends that have done something we found annoying. And generally, you don’t, when speaking to a long term friend say, “Hey you fuckin’ idiot what in the hell are you doing!” in front of bunch of people. Not if you want to keep them as friend. And Trump calling the countries of the European Union the real enemy is nonsense. I’m sure we sometimes get on their nerves and sometimes they get on ours. But that is normal for long term friendships. There is way to handle such matters.

2. Trump simply misunderstands trade. As I’ve written before there can be some real problems with free trade, like certain classes of workers being hit very hard. But Trump’s basic idea is that trade deficits means America is losing in some sense. That is just not true. And part of the reason, the US runs deficits likely has to do with the US position as the world’s banker and monetary hegemon.

3. If Republicans think that Trump is using his superior business skills to just negotiate a better deal, then I think they are being extremely delusional. Not that the Republican Party would do such a thing. And of course Trump’s superior bidnessman skills are extremely suspect.

56 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

 

Then there is immigration.  My belief is that corporate America has been using illegal immigrants to artificially drive down wages for US citizens.  The illegals work for less money, making them preferable to hire.  Yes, they pay taxes and work jobs no one else will.  Yes, the overwhelming majority are law abiding types, often fleeing hellholes 'south of south.'  But that does not change the wage depression effect.  Libertarian Overlords luv illegal alien workers.  And yes, I loath Trumps policies and racism on this matter - but this situation festered over multiple decades with NOBODY attempting to enact a serious, comprehensive long term fix. What proposals there were, were ALWAYS along the lines of 'entered after this date' or 'brought in as a minor' or some such - patches, not true solutions. Say what else you will, Trump dragged the whole stinking mess out into the open. 

Normally, yes, I would think that increasing the supply of labor would cause wages to go down. That would be my first inclination. But, there have been a variety of econometric studies that show that the impact of immigrant labor on US native wages is very small. The two groups that seem most affected by the increase of immigrant labor is a certain segment of American laborers, those primarily without high school degrees, and the immigrants themselves.

What’s going here? Likely immigrant labor is complement to American labor and not a complete substitute, at least within historical levels.

Overall, I think the current level of immigration to the United States is a net positive. And we probably could increase legal immigration without too much negative effect on native labor’s wages. So aTrump’s immigration bashing is a non issue and we really have bigger fish to fry.

Now some on the left are joining the traditional libertarian position of having complete open borders at this time, pointing to the numerous studies that have examined immigrations effect on native wages. On this point, I’m a bit more skittish. Mainly, for the reason, forecasting too far out of sample can be problematic exercise. I’d prefer us to adopt a more incremental approach. What I mean is expand legal immigration and see how it goes. If it doesn’t look like it is causing too many problems, then expand it more. There are reasons to think that eventually having more open boarders could be very welfare improving for both US residents and non US residents. However, if open boarders were done tomorrow, the US economy might have trouble adsorbing them all into the labor market.

But, again, Trump’s complaints about immigration at its current levels is seemingly a non issue and the US economy has bigger fish to fry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Then there is immigration.  My belief is that corporate America has been using illegal immigrants to artificially drive down wages for US citizens.  

The problem being your belief has been disproven by the available research on the topic. There is a single group of native born citizens (those without a HS diploma) who potentially see a slight decrease in wages. There is a positive impact for everyone else:

Quote

One of the most eminent specialists in the field of immigration economics, Giovanni Peri of the University of California at Davis, offers this homely analogy:

An extreme example of this would be if you have an engineer and you add a construction worker. With the engineer by himself you’re not going to do much. But with an engineer plus a construction worker, you can build a building. Therefore, the productivity of the engineer goes up a lot. And the wages for both workers increase.

The technical term for the situation Peri is describing is “complementarity.” The labor of the engineer and the labor of the construction worker each complement the other. Immigration economists argue that immigrant labor likewise complements native-born labor. As Peri assured readers in a 2010 paper for the San Francisco Federal Reserve, "Immigrants expand the U.S. economy’s productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity. Consistent with previous research, there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.”

To say you're not at "completely at odds" with Trump on immigration is essentially hand waiving a morally reprehensible response to a "crisis" that doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans really will support whatever Trump does. There really needs to be a counterbalancing term to “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”:  

https://www.axios.com/republicans-poll-donald-trump-press-conference-putin-5776322f-a483-4e21-b50c-028799b08367.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Republicans really will support whatever Trump does. There really needs to be a counterbalancing term to “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”:  

https://www.axios.com/republicans-poll-donald-trump-press-conference-putin-5776322f-a483-4e21-b50c-028799b08367.html

 

Trump apologia derangement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...