US Politics: Four Days and Counting

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

Again, this is a question for the courts.

Which has been answered.....  

I mean, there are shades of Marbury that will come up if it actually happened, which is actually....unsettling.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well, he's been ignoring the court order to reunite the families he separated.

He’s fudging that.  He’s not overtly “ refusing the order” he’s pleading difficultly complying with the order.  Not the same thing.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

The litany of Florida polls looked yesterday looked really good, but more for Gillum than Nelson.  Think that one's still up in the air.  As is Nevada in my eyes.  Otherwise, yeah.

It's quite possible I'm leaning too heavily on a combination of slim polling leads and early election prognostications, but I am feeling medium confident about FL and NV.  Both Steve Schale (FL) and Jon Ralston (NV) are rooting for the democrats, but they have a track record of correctly predicting Democrats coming up short in 2016 (FL) and 2012 (Heller).  So I take their opinions seriously. 

[Durckad]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He’s fuging that.  He’s not overtly “ refusing the order” he’s pleading difficultly complying with the order.  Not the same thing.

At what point does unable to comply become outright refusal?

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I mean, there are shades of Marbury that will come up if it actually happened, which is actually....unsettling.

A little bit, yeah, if the courts were to rule against him.  Roberts proved himself fairly apt in this regard with the ACA decision.  I'd expect a similar needle-threading.

[Frog Eater]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How can they not be under the Jurisdiction of the United States... if they are inside the United States and are not protected by Diplomatic Immunity.  Such a statement would be nonsensical.

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

The Argument goes: 

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

 

Personally: I think birthright citizenship gets upheld in the courts, and I dont think restricting travel of pregnant women will hold up either. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Durckad said:

At what point does unable to comply become outright refusal?

When he tells the Court where to shove it.  That is “Full Jackson”.  He should be impeached and removed from office when he does that, but, I doubt it.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How can they not be under the Jurisdiction of the United States... if they are inside the United States and are not protected by Diplomatic Immunity.  Such a statement would be nonsensical.

Well exactly.  And the existing precedents uphold this.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

A little bit, yeah, if the courts were to rule against him.  Roberts proved himself fairly apt in this regard with the ACA decision.  I'd expect a similar needle-threading.

Roberts does NOT want a Constitutional crisis. Agreed.

[Ice Queen]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

An aquaintance at my new employer advised that people were being told to completely deactivate their smartphones per Department of Homeland Security instructions.  This was in Greenville County SC.

She also said there were some heated arguments taking place in the long lines to  vote.

I've seen the same coming out of Georgia. I think they just don't want people taking pictures of their ballots as proof of who they voted for. Voting machines don't run on wifi (or shouldn't, at any rate) so there is no reason to turn off your phone. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

The Argument goes: 

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

 

Personally: I think birthright citizenship gets upheld in the courts, and I dont think restricting travel of pregnant women will hold up either. 

The issue is not the jurisdiction over the traveler or migrant, but the Jurisdiction over their child.  As agents of the United States is taking children who haven’t been born here from their parents, I suggest, that demonstrates US Jurisdiction over any child born within US territory.

[Ghjhero]

6 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I've seen the same coming out of Georgia. I think they just don't want people taking pictures of their ballots as proof of who they voted for. Voting machines don't run on wifi (or shouldn't, at any rate) so there is no reason to turn off your phone. 

I was an election worker in 2016 and we made sure to tell people it was illegal to take a picture of their ballots, precisely for the reason you described above. Hacking voting machines via wifi with a smartphone is not a realistic concern.

[Fez]

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Yeah.  I personally think that 50/50 is about as good as the Democrats can hope for, and better than I expect.  I agree that recruiting Murkowski is not out of the question. 

NOTE: LOTS OF SPECULATION HERE.  If the night is going well for Democrats in the Senate and 50/50 tie is really in play, it would make the Alaska Governors and House races suddenly a lot more interesting.  If Democrats were able to win either one, it would provide Murkowski more cover for a potential switch. 

 

I think its certainly a possibility if Democrats get to 50-50 and Begich and Galvin prove there is a Democratic path to winning Alaska without relying on running against an indicted Ted Stevens.

However, I suspect she would demand a heavy price and I wonder if its one Democrats would be comfortable with (especially if they win the House and therefore have oversight power already anyway). At a minimum I'd imagine she'd demand to remain as Chair of the Energy/Natural Resources committee rather than give it up to ranking Democratic senator Cantwell and that there be no attempt to undo the recent opening of part of ANWR for drilling.

But maybe Democrats would be willing to pay that if she agreed to vote with the party on blocking Trump judicial nominations (assuming the caucus is otherwise united).

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

At a minimum I'd imagine she'd demand to remain as Chair of the Energy/Natural Resources committee rather than give it up to ranking Democratic senator Cantwell and that there be no attempt to undo the recent opening of part of ANWR for drilling.

If that's all she asked for the Dems would be fools not to take it.  I'm not gonna get my hopes up regardless of the Alaskan election results, but have to admit Murkowski flipping has a certain Specter/Jeffords feel to it.

[Ice Queen]

12 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

I was an election worker in 2016 and we made sure to tell people it was illegal to take a picture of their ballots, precisely for the reason you described above. Hacking voting machines via wifi with a smartphone is not a realistic concern.

Why would it be illegal for people to take a photo of their own ballot? Not so long ago, ballots were completed in carbon copy and the voter got the carbon one as proof. What's the difference?

They also don't want people recording problems that occur. We've already had at least one machine switch party votes here. 

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

If that's all she asked for the Dems would be fools not to take it.  I'm not gonna get my hopes up regardless of the Alaskan election results, but have to admit Murkowski flipping has a certain Specter/Jeffords feel to it.

I mean, Democrats don't really control ANWR anyway, so offering not to stop it isn't giving up much.  And a committee chairmanship is certainly par for the course.  I actually struggle to think of demands that Murkowski could make that Senate Democrats wouldn't be willing to take, assuming she'd be willing to play on Team Democrat for judgeships and caucusing. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

I actually struggle to think of demands that Murkowski could make that Senate Democrats wouldn't be willing to take, assuming she'd be willing to play on Team Democrat for judgeships and caucusing. 

Agreed.  It should also be noted it doesn't really matter how she'd vote on judgeships as long as she caucuses with Dems.  Schumer (or whomever) would be able to block nominations from coming to a vote as floor leader once becoming the majority leader.

[lokisnow]

There’s more chance of a Dino like Schumer switching parties if things go badly for dems than murkowski switching.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Teng Ai Hui said:

I'm such a bundle of nerves today.  I can't decide if I want to stay in bed all day or get up and go daydrinking.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

[Ghjhero]

24 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Why would it be illegal for people to take a photo of their own ballot? Not so long ago, ballots were completed in carbon copy and the voter got the carbon one as proof. What's the difference?

They also don't want people recording problems that occur. We've already had at least one machine switch party votes here. 

I believe it is supposed to deter people from being able to prove and thus be pressured into voting for certain candidates. I’m not sure if that’s a federal or NYS law, but that’s what I was instructed to tell people by the Board of Elections when I had my election inspector training. 

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Frog Eater said:

but its not an amendment to the Constitution if his EO is clarifying that illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the United States but are acting as foreign agents, and therefore, children between 2 illegal immigrants are not citizens by right of being born in the United States. 

You are making things up, just like Trump. ‘Not under the jurisdiction of the US’ would mean you couldn’t arrest them for any crime, from parking tickets all the way to murder. Because they aren’t in the jurisdiction of the US. Diplomatic immunity.