Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Four Days and Counting

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I think it can be done either by legislation or an EO. You can’t undo birthright citizenship straight up, but I don’t see why you couldn’t ban women who are eight months pregnant from entering the country. The optics would be horrible, but I don’t see why it can’t be done.   

That's not undoing it in the way that Trump argues he could undo it via EO. It's more like placing a limitation on immigration to try to avoid the issue entirely. But yes, in theory I guess he could try to do that, but I'm not even certain that would stand up to legal challenges. For one thing, executive orders attempting to restrict immigration, as Trump has done, were (mendaciously) based on "national security" and the office's vast powers in relation to that. I can't see a construction of "national security" related to pregnant women that would fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I think it can be done either by legislation or an EO. You can’t undo birthright citizenship straight up, but I don’t see why you couldn’t ban women who are eight months pregnant from entering the country. The optics would be horrible, but I don’t see why it can’t be done.   

Banning women who are late in pregnancy from entering the US is within Legislative or (potentially) EO perview.  What cannot be done is to claim that by EO or Legislation a child born of a non-citizen within the US is not a citizen of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ormond said:

He's giving the numbers he thinks will flip in both directions, so the overall would be House D+9 and Senate R+6. 

I know, just giving him shit.  Like, he can't do that math for us?!?

48 minutes ago, Ran said:

I thought so as well, but apparently Posner thinks there are arguments that only a statutory change is needed and it's way above my knowledge of the law to really say. All I know for sure is an executive order can't do it! Posner, FWIW, cites Shuck and Smith, and I found this PDF which seems to be a summation of the argument that Posner found credible.

Whether it was administered by an EO or a statute, it would inevitably end up in the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Banning women who are late in pregnancy from entering the US is within Legislative or (potentially) EO perview.  What cannot be done is to claim that by EO or Legislation a child born of a non-citizen within the US is not a citizen of the US.

Why not?  What's stopping the order or legislation?  It wouldn't be stopped until it came before a court, right?  

I can't see how this would be any different than laws or EOs that restrict other amendments - they're there until they're challenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mexal said:

No lines where I am in Manhattan but didn't expect there to be. It was pretty calm in 2012 too.

We waited an hour in Manhattan.  Line was wrapped all the way around the block....saw the same at other polling places we passed, so may just depend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted at 7:15 this AM.  No lines, 4 others voting at my very rural polling place.  Overheard two pollworkers talking saying I was the 70th person (maybe it was really 17th?) to vote there today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I voted at 7:15 this AM.  No lines, 4 others voting at my very rural polling place.  Overheard two pollworkers talking saying I was the 70th person (maybe it was really 17th?) to vote there today.

I recently moved around the beltway from VA to MD and it took much longer to vote now.  In VA it never took longer than 5 minutes to vote, but in Maryland I was in line for 40 minutes to get a ballot.  I hope this is because of high voter enthusiasm and not just the norm in Maryland, but I was irritated.  Having to wait to vote is dumb, it shouldn't be happening.  I can barely imagine the cost in lost productivity (not to mention time with your family, etc) from all these lines to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Predictions from a Republican POV

Senate:

FL-D

MO- R

IN- D

ND- R

TN- R

TX- R

NV- D

AZ- R

MT- D

I believe those are all the battlegrounds but I could have missed one or two. Personally, I'm really nervous about how things will play out in AZ and NV, if Republicans lose those seats it could be the next step in those states going the way of Virginia. It'll be hard to win them back.

I agree with what was said upthread about how the governor races have been fairly overlooked. Obviously Florida has gotten the most attention, and yes if Gillum wins it'll be very problematic for Reps when it comes to redistricting in 2020. Not out of the question that GOP still wins Senate and Gov races in FL, but I wouldn't bet on it happening.

Dems flip the house, but to me, and this may be shortsighted I know, I only care about the Senate at this point. As long as the possibility exists to confirm more judges, SCOTUS and appellate courts, I'm ok with that. It's not as if any major legislation was going to get passed anytime soon anyway.

Anyway those are my hot takes for the day, happy election day folks and may the best candidates win!

Edited by Ghjhero
Indiana prediction was wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ran said:

That's not undoing it in the way that Trump argues he could undo it via EO. It's more like placing a limitation on immigration to try to avoid the issue entirely. But yes, in theory I guess he could try to do that, but I'm not even certain that would stand up to legal challenges. For one thing, executive orders attempting to restrict immigration, as Trump has done, were (mendaciously) based on "national security" and the office's vast powers in relation to that. I can't see a construction of "national security" related to pregnant women that would fly.

Well yeah, it wouldn’t be outright undoing birthright citizenship, but it would be the next best thing if you think it should be banned. And as far as legal challenges goes, I really can’t say how that would play out. I think the key would be establishing standing. After that, all bets are off. Lastly, Trump is sending 5,000 to 15,000 troops to the boarder based on national security claims that are totally bogus. I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t try to do the same with birthright citizenship. It’s not like reality has ever governed his decision making process.

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Banning women who are late in pregnancy from entering the US is within Legislative or (potentially) EO perview.  What cannot be done is to claim that by EO or Legislation a child born of a non-citizen within the US is not a citizen of the US.

I agree, though I fear at some point Trump will go full Andrew Jackson and tell the courts to shove it. What happens if the courts rule it unconstitutional and Trump simply ignores them?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anecdotal evidence does point to higher turnout, but at this point no one knows whether it is driven by Republicans or Democrats or a mix that no one knows about. I will point out that some of the latest polls on the generic ballot showed at least a +1 move (average) towards the Democrats, so I am feeling good about the Democrat chances.

My prediction is D+45 House, Senate: AZ/NV/FL/TX/WV/MT/IN go D, MO/ND/TN go R (I...dont know what that ends up being)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree, though I fear at some point Trump will go full Andrew Jackson and tell the courts to shove it. What happens if the courts rule it unconstitutional and Trump simply ignores them?  

People have been asking that question for 230 years.

4 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Senate: AZ/NV/FL/TX/WV/MT/IN go D, MO/ND/TN go R (I...dont know what that ends up being)

That'd be a 50-50 split..I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Why not?  What's stopping the order or legislation?  It wouldn't be stopped until it came before a court, right?  

I can't see how this would be any different than laws or EOs that restrict other amendments - they're there until they're challenged.

They are would be challenged almost immediately.  The Constitution cannot be amended by mere legislation or EO.  Any such action should be slapped down hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ran said:

That's not undoing it in the way that Trump argues he could undo it via EO. It's more like placing a limitation on immigration to try to avoid the issue entirely. But yes, in theory I guess he could try to do that, but I'm not even certain that would stand up to legal challenges. For one thing, executive orders attempting to restrict immigration, as Trump has done, were (mendaciously) based on "national security" and the office's vast powers in relation to that. I can't see a construction of "national security" related to pregnant women that would fly.

But what if those pregnant women have smallpox or Ebola or are carrying nascent jihadis in their wombs? You need to give Trump more credit here, he's a connoisseur of fearmongering and there's nothing that his base won't get apoplectic over.

Voted this morning on the way to work. Really was not that busy but my polling place tends to be much busier near the end of the day so I'm not sure that it means anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Altherion said:

There's a set of behaviors (e.g. not repaying one's debts) that nearly all cultures agree is bad. The bet China is making is that they can build a better society by measuring people than by going entirely without measurement. As the Vox article points out, the US is not that far from this: we don't have the kind of comprehensive score that they're aiming for, but we do have a credit score which provides incentives such as lower mortgage and car rates.

Maybe and maybe not. We'll see soon enough -- they claim that it'll be ready in 2020.

If not paying your debts is such a bad thing, explain to me how someone sued for not paying their debts, and then gets sued his own lawyers for not paying his debts again, manages to reach high office. Yes the deadbeat is Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

We waited an hour in Manhattan.  Line was wrapped all the way around the block....saw the same at other polling places we passed, so may just depend.

Interesting. I'm in the UWS and when I voted in 2016, it was similar though I waited maybe 10 minutes then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

My prediction is D+45 House, Senate: AZ/NV/FL/TX/WV/MT/IN go D, MO/ND/TN go R (I...dont know what that ends up being)

That would be D+1 and a 50/50 split. 

I feel like after all the hullabaloo about the Senate, there are really just three races I'm really unsure about - AZ, IN and MO.  I am not nearly as optimistic about TX as some posters here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from voting in NoVA. Pretty sure this is roughly the same time of day I voted in governor/state leg. races last year, and turnout seems much higher this year. I moved after 2016 though, so I don't have a comparison to that year or to 2014.

On the one hand, I'm a bit surprised turnout was so high considering we don't have any truly competitive elections (I'm in Beyer's district, not Comstock). On the other hand, the NoVA suburbs are basically ground-zero for both Democratic resistance and the NeverTrumpers who actually act on their beliefs, both of whom despise Cory Stewart, the Republican senate candidate.

ETA: Even with the higher turnout, I was in line for maybe 5 minutes tops. Arlington is really on top of things when it comes to collecting votes (less so on counting them, though they were faster than usual in 2017).

Edited by Fez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

They are would be challenged almost immediately.  The Constitution cannot be amended by mere legislation or EO.  Any such action should be slapped down hard.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

That would be D+1 and a 50/50 split.

Maybe a bit optimistic then, but I really think there are some infrequent voters that are turning out this election.

I hope for a 50/50 split so that someone like Murkowski can be convinced to switch or caucus with the Democrats (lets not bring up Collin's, eh?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I feel like after all the hullabaloo about the Senate, there are really just three races I'm really unsure about - AZ, IN and MO. 

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.

6 minutes 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. 

Again, this is a question for the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×