US Politics: Red Whine Hangover

[Rippounet]

11 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Jeez I used to think I was the paranoid one...

Is there anything in recent news that would suggest you were wrong to be paranoid?

[Darth Richard II]

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Is there anything in recent news that would suggest you were wrong to be paranoid?

No, but I'm also not worried that I'm going to blink and suddenly the entire country is goign to be turned into Mad Max.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Relying on them to first divide and then create an interstate compact is a recipe for disaster, if they could sign into a super-state compact and then divide with all the logistical issues already handled by the super state compact exactly as if the state hadn't divided then you could have a smooth transition.

I don't understand the distinction between an interstate compact and a "super-state" compact.  Are you messing with me?

[Bonnot OG]

Oh look, the WSJ is backing a fascist in Brazil in Bolsonaro. Lol, what a garbage ass rag they are. 
 

[Martell Spy]

13 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Oh look, the WSJ is backing a fascist in Brazil in Bolsonaro. Lol, what a garbage ass rag they are. 
 

They want Pinochet back.

[Fez]

Kavanaugh is already making Gorsuch look better by comparison. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/politics/kavanaugh-immigration-supreme-court-case.html

Quote

 

A Supreme Court argument on Wednesday over the detention of immigrants during deportation proceedings seemed to expose a divide between President Trump’s two appointees, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The question in the case was whether federal authorities must detain immigrants who had committed crimes, often minor ones, no matter how long ago they were released from criminal custody. Justice Kavanaugh said a 1996 federal law required detention even years later, without an opportunity for a bail hearing.

“What was really going through Congress’s mind in 1996 was harshness on this topic,” he said.

But Justice Gorsuch suggested that mandatory detentions of immigrants long after they completed their sentences could be problematic. “Is there any limit on the government’s power?” he asked.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer pressed the point, asking a lawyer for the federal government whether it could detain “a person 50 years later, who is on his death bed, after stealing some bus transfers” without a bail hearing “even though in this country a triple ax murderer is given a bail hearing.”

The lawyer, Zachary D. Tripp, hedged, and Justice Gorsuch grew frustrated.

“Mr. Tripp, we’re quibbling,” Justice Gorsuch said. “Justice Breyer’s question is my question, and I really wish you’d answer it.”

 

Although, as the article later notes, Gorsuch did join the liberals in that 5-4 case last year striking down an automatic deportations law; so this is not a new area for him.

 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I don't understand the distinction between an interstate compact and a "super-state" compact.  Are you messing with me?

Theoretically putting the cart before the horse isn’t a problem right ?

[lokisnow]

So in the last 24 hours North Dakota kicked twenty percent of voters off the rolls (native Americans) Indiana refused hundreds of thousands of registrations and purged tens of thousands of voters, and Georgia refused registrations from 53000 black voters 

wow. There sure are a lot election changes happening fast in these last thirty days before the election.

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

They want Pinochet back.

Oh they love violent right wingers. The National Review backed Franco back in the 30s too lol. 

But hey! Fascism can't happen in the US because of checks and balances! We only have large media corporations that support it that totally wouldn't white wash fascism here.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, Fez said:

Kavanaugh is already making Gorsuch look better by comparison. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/politics/kavanaugh-immigration-supreme-court-case.html

Although, as the article later notes, Gorsuch did join the liberals in that 5-4 case last year striking down an automatic deportations law; so this is not a new area for him.

 

Gorsuch is far more qualified than Kavanaugh. Whatever you think of him, he didn't spend his entire life being a political hack. That should have disqualified him. 

[Darth Richard II]

1 minute ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Gorsuch is far more qualified than Kavanaugh. Whatever you think of him, he didn't spend his entire life being a political hack. That should have disqualified him. 

My cats are more qualified than Kavanaugh.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The Dow dropped 831.83 points today. That’s more than 3%.

It's really offensive though that Bezos can lose %5 billion in one day and not even notice it. That kind of wealth is not okay. Hence' why I've always argued that there should be no billionaires. No one needs that kind of money and the expense of billions of suffering people. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Darth Richard II said:

My cats are more qualified than Kavanaugh.

Proof positive:

 

[DMC]

46 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Theoretically putting the cart before the horse isn’t a problem right ?

Nah I don't think so, I guess I'm just confused as to why states couldn't do the same with an interstate compact.

[Bonnot OG]

Kavanaugh is nothing but a white hooded judge that is also a rapist.

[lokisnow]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

Nah I don't think so, I guess I'm just confused as to why states couldn't do the same with an interstate compact.

So I want big states to break up into smaller states to gain senators. 

A state like California can’t do that because of water issues (amongst many others)

asking California to first break up and then trusting they will form an interstate compact after breaking up is insane and would probably require starting every current interstate agreement from scratch.

if we created a legal vehicle that let states transfer authority and jurisdiction over issues like water to that vehicle, then states like California would be free to break up and gain senators, but all those big issues would stay within the legal bounds of that vehicle and also creating a seamless administrative transition while the news States would still retain proportional representation and control of that vehicle.

if California can create an interstate compact with itself as an undivided entity and then maintain that authority once divided than that’s fine, I just assumed they couldnt create a compact with themselves.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

if California can create an interstate compact with itself as an undivided entity and then maintain that authority once divided than that’s fine, I just assumed they couldnt create a compact with themselves.

Yeah what I'm assuming California could do is pass a law breaking it up into however many states, but also write language into the bill that upon dissolution each new state will be required to enter into the interstate compact - then, of course, submit the proposal to Congress for approval.  But I'm not an expert, maybe you're right and they couldn't do that.

[Kalbear]

I can't imagine that one could write a law requiring states - existing or not - have their statehood depend on joining a non-Federal organization. That would be a clear and obvious violation of Federal rights, and would easily be dismissed as such from a whole lot of precedent. 

I'm sure that the states, once actually separated, could agree to a compact - but I'm also sure that it cannot require anything to do with statehood as the regulations for it. 

It's quite the prisoner's dilemma, and I think things have to get a lot worse politically for California before they go down that route. Right now California is being occasionally threatened weakly on immigration and given massive boosts to corporate taxes, so they're probably not going to bite the hand that feeds it too much. Start tariffing more where it hurts California, though, and you might see more of a push. 

[Martell Spy]

Hahah, the Turtle is pissing himself at the realization that accountability is coming fast.

 

McConnell Warns Democrats That Holding Trump Accountable Will Only Make Him Stronger

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/mitch-mcconnell-associated-press-advises-democrats-to-avoid-presidential-harassment.html

Quote

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warned Democrats on Wednesday that investigating Donald Trump’s (allegedly criminal) financial and business practices would only “help the president get reelected” in 2020 — because voters don’t have much taste for “presidential harassment”:

REPORTER: Democrats have made clear that if they do win back the House, they plan to launch many, many investigations into the president and the administration. They’ve made clear that one of their lines of inquiry is going to be the president’s tax returns, the president’s businesses, the president’s hotel contract … do you think that’s a legitimate line of inquiry for Democrats to be talking about?

McCONNELL: I think it’ll help the president get reelected. I remember the price we paid when — actually, we did impeach Bill Clinton. I remember all the enthusiasm, lots of Republicans in the House and Senate — “boy, this is the ticket, this is gonna make us have a great year.” It worked exactly the opposite. The public got mad at us. … this business of presidential harassment may or may not quite be the winner they think it is.

Needless to say, Mitch McConnell is not earnestly worried about Democrats squandering their opportunity to regain power in 2020. Like most of the Majority Leader’s pronouncements, his reflections on “presidential harassment” are aimed at shaping reality, not describing it.

 

 

 

 

[Martell Spy]

The People v. the U.S. Senate
A number of left-wing thinkers are calling for America to ditch the Senate. Why is the long-shot idea gaining popularity?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/senators-kavanaugh-represented-44-percent-us/572623/

Quote

 

Malapportionment is unconstitutional in the United States, says the University of Missouri political scientist Peverill Squire, except when it applies to the Senate, and that creates a power imbalance that belies the psephological maxim: Land doesn’t vote. Except, of course, when it does.  

The problem is still a substantial one, particularly for those who emphasize the principle of one person, one vote. The problem with the idea rests in the Constitution. Representative Don Beyer of Virginia, a noted proponent of electoral reform who has introduced a bill in Congress to radically alter the way the House is elected, summed up the issue: “We’re not America; we’re the United States of America.” The Senate’s equal representation, in this view, mirrors that of the United Nations, where Monaco and China each get one vote. Since each state is constitutionally viewed as co-equal and sovereign, it cannot be subjugated to the will of another. But whether that reality has continued relevance is debatable.