US Politics: Wondering the Acosta

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Also, when did he tell them what they're doing with the census is fine?  He sent it back to a district judge that's been pretty dismissive of the DOJ's new "arguments." 

"The court’s other conservative justices – Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – joined the third part of the Roberts opinion, in which the court concluded that the decision to add the citizenship question did not run afoul of the enumeration clause. Whether the decision bears a “reasonable relationship” to getting an accurate headcount isn’t the right question to ask here, Roberts reasoned. Otherwise, the Census Bureau would never be able to ask any questions about demographics on the census, because none of those have anything to do with the number of people who live in the United States. Instead, Roberts noted, the court should look at the history of the census, and that history shows that all “three branches of Government have understood the Constitution to allow Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to use the census for more than simply counting the population,” and specifically for “information-gathering purposes.” Therefore, Roberts concluded, the enumeration clause “permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.”" 

and

" Roberts wrote, that Ross “was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office; instructed his staff to make it happen; waited while Commerce officials explored whether another agency would request census-based citizenship data; subsequently contacted the Attorney General himself to ask if DOJ would make the request; and adopted the Voting Rights Act rationale late in the process.” Taking that evidence in its entirety, Roberts determined, “we share the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the” Voting Rights Act."

and

"Roberts concluded, the district court was therefore correct to send the case back to the Department of Commerce for it to provide a better explanation. “Reasoned decisionmaking,” Roberts emphasized, “calls for an explanation for agency action. "

Roberts is absolutely fine with them asking this kind of question. He sent it back to commerce to provide a better explanation. It doesn't need to be even a particularly good explanation. It doesn't need to make the census more accurate. It just needs to not be, as Roberts put it, a 'distraction'. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Anyway, on the ACA, upholding it is kinda part of his legacy at this point, and I think he likes being looked that way.  So like I said, we'll see.  Not to mention, the case itself is highly questionable:

The case is absurdly highly questionable. So was the gerrymandering defense (and the tortured reasoning behind the decision). So was the original decision on the ACA. It hasn't stopped the federal judge previously from deciding the whole thing should be struck down, it doesn't look like it's going to stop the appeals court, and I don't see how it would likely stop Roberts either. 

Given that McConnell is already saying that they'll cover pre-existing conditions (HAH), I think that what Trump et al will do next is do a reconcilliation that puts into law JUST  the parts they really want to fake-out cover, and they'll probably have enough dems to back it up. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Roberts is absolutely fine with them asking this kind of question. He sent it back to commerce to provide a better explanation. It doesn't need to be even a particularly good explanation. It doesn't need to make the census more accurate. It just needs to not be, as Roberts put it, a 'distraction'. 

Sure, but another way to look at it is Roberts is punting and wants to maintain his conservative bona fides.  You think SCOTUS is going to review the case again before they HAVE to start printing the damn things?  Seems to me his decision was clearly designed to delay and evade.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So was the gerrymandering defense (and the tortured reasoning behind the decision). So was the original decision on the ACA.

No I don't think so .  Both those cases had much more solid legal grounds.  In my opinion, who's not a lawyer.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It hasn't stopped the federal judge previously from deciding the whole thing should be struck down

The district judge is an Obama appointee.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Given that McConnell is already saying that they'll cover pre-existing conditions (HAH), I think that what Trump et al will do next is do a reconcilliation that puts into law JUST  the parts they really want to fake-out cover, and they'll probably have enough dems to back it up. 

We'll see.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, but another way to look at it is Roberts is punting and wants to maintain his conservative bona fides.  You think SCOTUS is going to review the case again before they HAVE to start printing the damn things?  Seems to me his decision was clearly designed to delay and evade. 

I think what will happen is that Trump will justify that he can put it on from the basis that he has broad power to determine immigration laws (most of the new counsel is from that side), and he's just going to go ahead and do it. They "HAVE" to print the things no later than Oct 31st, except if they get more money, which they can simply appropriate using emergency powers as they have done in the past. They have the time, so to speak. And the court doesn't appear to give one shit about being blatantly lied to (the reason they skipped appeals court and went straight to SCOTUS was because the defendants repeatedly stated that they had to have it decided by end of June...oops). 

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

No I don't think so .  Both those cases had much more solid legal grounds.  In my opinion, who's not a lawyer. 

The ACA's decision is literally the basis on which it is now being marked as entirely unconstitutional, so...yeah. Both were entirely flimsy bullshit things. 

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

The district judge is an Obama appointee.

"On June 27, 2007, O'Connor was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated by A. Joe Fish. The United States Senate confirmed O'Connor's appointment on November 16, 2007, and he received his commission on November 21, 2007.^[2]"

source

The two Republican appointed judges on the 5th are by GWB and Trump. Both were notably very skeptical about if the ACA could even survive without the mandate. 

 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think what will happen is that Trump will justify that he can put it on from the basis that he has broad power to determine immigration laws (most of the new counsel is from that side), and he's just going to go ahead and do it

Yes, I think he's likely to try an EO.  And I think that EO will get struck down.  What happen's next?  EO knows?

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The ACA's decision is literally the basis on which it is now being marked as entirely unconstitutional

I don't think that's true.  Explain your reasoning.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The two Republican appointed judges on the 5th are by GWB and Trump. Both were notably very skeptical about if the ACA could even survive without the mandate. 

Sorry, must've been some cross-talk there.  I was referring to Jesse Furman and the census case.

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think that's true.  Explain your reasoning. 

It's the same reason that the ACA was being marked as being unconstitutional to begin with. Here's Roberts' singular opinion:
 

Quote

 

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax.

As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer.^[47]

...

The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A [of the Internal Revenue Code] would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.^[48]

 

 

The argument now is that by reducing the tax to nothing, it is no longer a tax, and therefore (by Roberts own opinion) it is no longer constitutional. To be clear, I think  this is entirely bullshit, but it was also entirely bullshit what Roberts did in order to justify the mandate. The liberal justices simply said it was within the power of congress via their power to regulate commerce (shady, but a whole lot of precedent there), the other conservatives basically told Roberts to go fuck himself and his opinion and thought he was entirely full of shit, and said that the mandate was clearly not a tax, it was clearly not within the commerce  regulations and that would expand those powers WAY too much, and that the whole thing should be struck down. 

Roberts went out on his own and put out this weird labored opinion on what congress construed and thus justified it. Well, that same weird laboring is being used to strike it down now that the tax is gone, because Roberts basically said that a whole lot of the rest of it was unconstitutional but was okay because this part (the tax) was. Oops. 

Quote

Sorry, must've been some cross-talk there.  I was referring to Jesse Furman and the census case.

I don't think what he says matters in the least. It'll be decided by SCOTUS or ignored entirely. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The argument now is that by reducing the tax to nothing, it is no longer a tax, and therefore (by Roberts own opinion) it is no longer constitutional. To be clear, I think  this is entirely bullshit, but it was also entirely bullshit what Roberts did in order to justify the mandate.

Roberts threaded a needle to set him up for other cases.  And because he does not want the court to be the arbiter on healthcare.  I'm sorry, but that is my main takeaway from his decision and isn't going to change because there's another challenge out there.  And frankly, Roberts has only reinforced that that's why he issued that opinion since then, so I don't see much credible evidence that the ACA is going to get overturned that isn't motivated by either cynicism or activism.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It'll be decided by SCOTUS or ignored entirely. 

Well yeah.  In that case if it's "ignored entirely" that means it goes to Furman.  Which appears what they're inclined to do.  Which means Trump either needs to continue to defy the courts or eat it.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Roberts threaded a needle to set him up for other cases.  And because he does not want the court to be the arbiter on healthcare. 

He specifically made his decision in 2012 in order for the courts to be the arbiter on healthcare. That's sort of why they're in the position they're in. (if you like, I can find a less conservative view of that decision, but there is a lot of reporting on how Roberts negotiated back and forth on this). The long and short of it is that Roberts really did decide that he wanted to keep the healthcare bill alive as it was, and wrote a lot of pieces on how the commerce clause wasn't the answer, it was a tax, and the rest of it wasn't constitutional but they're keeping it anyway. Which...is not a great thing to write when they strike down the actual tax. 

Just now, DMC said:

I'm sorry, but that is my main takeaway from his decision and isn't going to change because there's another challenge out there.  And frankly, Roberts has only reinforced that that's why he issued that opinion since then, so I don't see much credible evidence that the ACA is going to get overturned that isn't motivated by either cynicism or activism.  

Well, okay, as long as you're not swayed by actual reporting, history or data, I guess that's cool. 

There's a good summation of how Roberts fucked up and how it led to this mess here.

Just now, DMC said:

Well yeah.  In that case if it's "ignored entirely" that means it goes to Furman.  Which appears what they're inclined to do.  Which means Trump either needs to continue to defy the courts or eat it.

I mean that it can go to Furman, and Trump is just going to do what he wants. I think if he issues an EO on this or simply declares he has the power and instructs Ross to go ahead, it won't be going back to Furman as it's a different decision at that point. Not that it matters, really. As soon as Trump states that it's because he wants to enforce immigration, Roberts' decisions on the Muslim ban get to bite him on the ass again (assuming he doesn't want his ass bitten). 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

straw poll

Harris

2 minutes ago, Triskele said:

not just who you're for at the moment but how elastic or inelastic your position is, how persuadable you are, you know.  

It appears down to a top four at this point.  I am very unfavorable with Sanders and Biden, for a multitude of reasons we've hashed out many a time.  As for Warren?  Yeah, ya know, I think I could easily get behind her, volunteer for her, fundraise for her etc.  My issue with her has always been I think she's a bad politician.  But she's proving me wrong.  If she wins the primary, she'll thoroughly prove me wrong.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He specifically made his decision in 2012

Dude, did you just quote from the executive editor of the Washington Examiner?  Really?  Ok, we're just gonna ignore that.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The long and short of it is that Roberts really did decide that he wanted to keep the healthcare bill alive as it was, and wrote a lot of pieces on how the commerce clause wasn't the answer,

Yes, this was my point.  I'm honestly getting confused...

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There's a good summation of how Roberts fucked up and how it led to this mess here.

So Roberts ruling generated the legal basis for the case.  That has any type of influence on his ultimate decision how_______?  

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

and Trump is just going to do what he wants

Yeah that's what I said earlier.  EO knows?  That was funny.  Like, in a Sesame Street way or something, but c'mon!

[Centrist Simon Steele]

15 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I thought it might be fun as well as interesting to do a straw poll of sorts where people state, at this early moment in the process, which candidate they're for if they had to choose right now.  I mostly expect responses on the Dem nominee since that's the party that is having a primary process plus knowing what I know about this board.  I don't mean to discourage anyone who is for Trump of Schultz or Bill Weld to also weigh in if they feel like it.  

I supposed I'm Warren at the moment though I would describe my position as, if I'm using the term correctly, elastic.  I feel like I could easily be convinced to change by new info, a different feeling about who is likely to be Trump, etc...

So maybe that could be an interesting thing also to share:  not just who you're for at the moment but how elastic or inelastic your position is, how persuadable you are, you know.  

I love this! I'm for Bernie right now, but Warren is a close second. If not those two, I am much less enthused--they're all the same at that point. Corporate shills. 

[DMC]

I meant the top four are Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Harris, and I don't like the former two.

[DMC]

Just now, Triskele said:

Booker and Castro with some hope, I'd say.  O'Rouke mostly dead but perhaps not all dead.  Maybe same for Klobuchar?  Gillebrand seems all dead.  And Marianne Williamson communes with the dead.  

Yeah I think that pretty well sums it up, but who knows.  When you have a weak frontrunner - which Biden is - strange things can happen at the 1-2 point.  Look at the 2012 primary.  We all knew it was gonna be Romney - like, from 2009, we all knew it'd be Romney.  But we get Santorum, and Gingrich, and fucking Herman Cain.  Because the GOP is insane and will try anything.  The Dems aren't exactly like that, but I'm definitely not ruling out some high volatility before the voting starts.

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Dude, did you just quote from the executive editor of the Washington Examiner?  Really?  Ok, we're just gonna ignore that.

As I said, I can provide other non-conservative bits if you like. Here's CNN saying basically the same thing, but making it out like Roberts is awesome for doing what he did. 

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, this was my point.  I'm honestly getting confused...

The problem is that he set a precedent with his own actual words and decisions, which got used in 2017 to eliminate the mandate as a tax cut (because Roberts said it was a tax, so...) and then in 2018 to say that since it's gone, it's unconstitutional. Roberts could go back on his word that he made and say nope, I was wrong, it's actually commerce - but law has already been passed on his decision in 2017. I am betting that he doesn't go back on his decision and sticks with his guns. He's big on precedent, even if he is the one deciding it. 

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

So Roberts ruling generated the legal basis for the case.  That has any type of influence on his ultimate decision how_______?  

Roberts has been big on either setting big broad precedents for things or trying to not go too far in countermanding prior ones. In some cases - gerrymandering, campaign finance - he's cool with setting it. In others he wants to keep things mostly relaxed. Something that he has never, not once, done, however, is contradict his own actual rulings. So because he decided one way in a landmark decision means that he is likely going to decide the same way in another decision. 

[Kalbear]

My choice in some perfect world would be Warren. I am incredibly elastic and noncommittal about it, however, and none of the candidates out there have struck me as being particularly excellent the way Obama was. Harris, in particular, has the highest highs but has some massive negatives that bug me - her inability to articulate policy and what she wants, her poor backtracking on things - these strike me as major weaknesses. 

[Jace, Extat]

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, I think he's likely to try an EO.  And I think that EO will get struck down.  What happen's next?  EO knows?

 

When they start printing them with a citizenship question nobody's gonna stop them. That's what'll happen.

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I thought it might be fun as well as interesting to do a straw poll of sorts where people state, at this early moment in the process, which candidate they're for if they had to choose right now.  I mostly expect responses on the Dem nominee since that's the party that is having a primary process plus knowing what I know about this board.  I don't mean to discourage anyone who is for Trump of Schultz or Bill Weld to also weigh in if they feel like it.  

I supposed I'm Warren at the moment though I would describe my position as, if I'm using the term correctly, elastic.  I feel like I could easily be convinced to change by new info, a different feeling about who is likely to be Trump, etc...

So maybe that could be an interesting thing also to share:  not just who you're for at the moment but how elastic or inelastic your position is, how persuadable you are, you know.  

I'll vote for the Democratic nominee and I'll entertain no more consideration on the matter for my part. Even if it's -gag- Marianne Williamson, I'll trust in the power of love to be the thing that gets me to finally put a shotgun in my mouth and step off a building.

Where Jace's flexibility emerges is in what I'll donate to candidates. I've mentioned before and I wasn't being flippant, but I have every intention of making use of my salary in service of Democracy depending on whom Democrats see fit to champion. If it's not one of those I see as viable, I'm going to Italy. If it's one I really don't see as viable I'm going to Greece and Macedonia as well because I won't waste my funds on Senate races doomed to failure.

[Jaxom 1974]

I'm trying to stay flexible enough to want to see more from a bunch of the candidates. The only one I know I'd have to hold  my nose to vote for would be Bernie.  He's one I have no interest in. Some of his policies, maybe, but I'd rather see them from someone else. There's something about Bernie that raises the hackles. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

When they start printing them with a citizenship question nobody's gonna stop them. That's what'll happen.

Yeah, that's my feeling as well. Ross is just going to say 'the boss says it's cool' and the justice department has already rolled over on it. This is what I was getting at earlier - that Furman is immaterial at this point. At best it'll go to a different federal court because it'll be a different justification and rationalization, at worst they'll just start printing it out and sending it out. 

[Martell Spy]

Migrant kids in overcrowded Arizona border station allege sex assault, retaliation from U.S. agents
Migrant children held in Yuma, Arizona, report sex assault and retaliation for protests in addition to unsanitary conditions and overcrowding.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/migrant-kids-overcrowded-arizona-border-station-allege-sex-assault-retaliation-n1027886

Quote

 

A 15-year-old girl from Honduras described a large, bearded officer putting his hands inside her bra, pulling down her underwear and groping her as part of what was meant to be a routine pat down in front of other immigrants and officers.

The girl said "she felt embarrassed as the officer was speaking in English to other officers and laughing" during the entire process, according to a report of her account.

 

 

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, that's my feeling as well. Ross is just going to say 'the boss says it's cool' and the justice department has already rolled over on it. This is what I was getting at earlier - that Furman is immaterial at this point. At best it'll go to a different federal court because it'll be a different justification and rationalization, at worst they'll just start printing it out and sending it out. 

I literally can't imagine how folks have deluded themselves into thinking otherwise. I mean, I get the news. They gotta keep up an air of doubt, implications that it can go a number of different ways, to get people to keep tuning in. But for actually engaged political observers this one was decided in April, anything else is wilful delusion.

The citizenship question will be on the census. Get used to that.

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Migrant kids in overcrowded Arizona border station allege sex assault, retaliation from U.S. agents
Migrant children held in Yuma, Arizona, report sex assault and retaliation for protests in addition to unsanitary conditions and overcrowding.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/migrant-kids-overcrowded-arizona-border-station-allege-sex-assault-retaliation-n1027886

 

Feature, not a bug.

[DMC]

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As I said, I can provide other non-conservative bits if you like. Here's CNN saying basically the same thing, but making it out like Roberts is awesome for doing what he did. 

Ok, but what you provided is much closer to what I was saying than what you were saying.  Perhaps we just have different perceptions on this.  Like, this is a large part of your link:

Quote

Roberts did not want the entire law to fall. A pro-business conservative, he understood the importance of the insurance industry to US businesses, and he was genuinely concerned about invalidating an entire law that had been approved through the democratic process to solve the intractable health care problem.

But his four fellow conservatives believed that if the individual mandate was going down, it should take the whole law with it. They believed all the pieces were interlocked. Roberts thought the individual mandate was entwined with only two other provisions, those known as the "community rating" and "guaranteed issue." The community-rating section prevented insurers from charging some individuals higher premiums than others based on health status. The guaranteed-issue section required insurers to cover people regardless of pre-existing conditions.

As was his prerogative as chief justice, Roberts chose to write the majority opinion, giving him the ability to shape what the court would ultimately say. Senior liberal justice Ginsburg was ready to write for the dissenting foursome.

Soon after, Roberts began trying to persuade Kennedy to find that the unconstitutional insurance requirement could be severed from the rest of the law. But Kennedy -- often a swing vote on high-profile cases -- was firm in his position. He was puzzled, and then put off, by Roberts' view that the ACA provisions could be severed.

That sounds exactly like the guy I'm describing - a CJOTUS that doesn't want to fuck around with healthcare.  

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The problem is that he set a precedent with his own actual words and decisions

Of course he did.  Once again, that was my point.  But have any of these cases degraded the ACA?  Please cite.

36 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Roberts has been big on either setting big broad precedents for things or trying to not go too far in countermanding prior ones. In some cases - gerrymandering, campaign finance - he's cool with setting it.

Dude he didn't set any precedents on gerrymandering.  He punted it.  As for campaign finance, yeah, agree with you there.  That was kind of his angle.

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Something that he has never, not once, done, however, is contradict his own actual rulings. So because he decided one way in a landmark decision means that he is likely going to decide the same way in another decision. 

Um, yeah, that's my argument.  I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but neither is Roberts.  He knows he is the reason the ACA still exists.  And he knows how much it pissed off every right activist alive in this country.  Ya know how many texts I got comparing him to Warren when that decision was publicized?  You think he's gonna overturn that?

39 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I just had a flashback to how for a little while people thought Rick Perry was a serious contender.  

It was like the summer of 69!

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Harris, in particular, has the highest highs but has some massive negatives that bug me - her inability to articulate policy and what she wants, her poor backtracking on things - these strike me as major weaknesses. 

As an enthusiast, which I've apparently/unfortunately became on this board, I whole-heartedly agree.  She has some work to do.  But so did Obama.

38 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

When they start printing them with a citizenship question nobody's gonna stop them. That's what'll happen.

We'll see.  This will go to the courts immediately if he tries an EO like that.

[DMC]

He should run for Senate.  And I know he doesn't wanna run for Senate, but that's all he's good for at this point.