U.S politics: You got knocked the Warnocked out:

[Martell Spy]

Critics Call It Theocratic and Authoritarian. Young Conservatives Call It an Exciting New Legal Theory.
‘Common good constitutionalism’ has emerged as a leading contender to replace originalism as the dominant legal theory on the right.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/09/revolutionary-conservative-legal-philosophy-courts-00069201

Quote

 In practice, Vermeule’s theory lends support to an idiosyncratic but far-reaching set of far-right objectives: outright bans on abortion and same-sex marriage, sweeping limits on freedom of expression and expanded authorities for the government to do everything from protecting the natural environment to prohibiting the sale of porn.

 

[maarsen]

26 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Critics Call It Theocratic and Authoritarian. Young Conservatives Call It an Exciting New Legal Theory.
‘Common good constitutionalism’ has emerged as a leading contender to replace originalism as the dominant legal theory on the right.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/09/revolutionary-conservative-legal-philosophy-courts-00069201

 

Everything old is new again. Rebranding fascism is all this is. To paraphrase that old quote from the Vietnam war, 'we had to destroy your liberty in order to save it.'

[Corvinus85]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I think sinema knows that she won't win a primary in 2024.  So she will run as an independent and avoid accountability to Democratic voters.  She knows that if the Dems run someone they will split the vote in the general election and likely hand the seat to the Republicans.  

So she is hoping the Dems don't dare run anyone against her.  That probably won't happen, but nonetheless, it is bad news for Dems holding the seat.  Even if sinema only got 4 percent, that is probably enough to hand the seat to the Republicans.

The Dems will absolutely have someone run against her and it seems to me she is more likely to steal some Republican votes. What has she done for Arizona that Dem voters will still pick her over the Dem candidate? I suppose she could get some of the independent vote.

[Rippounet]

52 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Critics Call It Theocratic and Authoritarian. Young Conservatives Call It an Exciting New Legal Theory.
‘Common good constitutionalism’ has emerged as a leading contender to replace originalism as the dominant legal theory on the right.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/09/revolutionary-conservative-legal-philosophy-courts-00069201

Did I ever tell you guys the story of how Vermeule came to my school to give a talk, and when I tried to ask him a couple of tough questions during coffee break the guy almost literally ran away from me? He mumbled something about going to the toilet and then stayed in a corner of the conference room doing nothing until the break was over.
I'd been warned he doesn't like questions, but the man's such a craven it's almost funny.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

56 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Critics Call It Theocratic and Authoritarian. Young Conservatives Call It an Exciting New Legal Theory.
‘Common good constitutionalism’ has emerged as a leading contender to replace originalism as the dominant legal theory on the right.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/09/revolutionary-conservative-legal-philosophy-courts-00069201

 

Thank you for sharing.  I’ve never seen that before.  It is terrifying.  

A framework of Constitutional interpretation that would provide a legal vener for Dominionists in their efforts to destroy and replace pluralistic democracy in the United States.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Did I ever tell you guys the story of how Vermeule came to my school to give a talk, and when I tried to ask him a couple of tough questions during coffee break the guy almost literally ran away from me? He mumbled something about going to the toilet and then stayed in a corner of the conference room doing nothing until the break was over.
I'd been warned he doesn't like questions, but the man's such a craven it's almost funny.

He doesn’t have to be brave or able to answer hard questions to have serious negative impact.  Do you remember what you asked him?

[IheartIheartTesla]

Lets not discount Sinema wanting to be the center of attention as motivation for this stunt as well. This way the Democrats still have to pay her some form of attention rather than treat her like any of the other 50 Senators.

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

The Dems will absolutely have someone run against her and it seems to me she is more likely to steal some Republican votes. What has she done for Arizona that Dem voters will still pick her over the Dem candidate? I suppose she could get some of the independent vote.

She is currently polling something like 35% with independents and like 30% with Democrats and Republicans.  Virtually none of those Republicans will actually vote for her, they just like that she is good at pissing the Democrats off.  But the fact that she's a sitting senator means that she'll probably get at least a few votes from Independents and Democrats who fall for her mavericky shtick (ooh look she's so independent when she does whatever her corporate overlords pay her to do).   

I could easily imagine a scenario with these splits between Democratic nominee, Sinema and the Republican.

Democrats:  90/8/2

Independents:  45/10/45

Republicans:  2/3/95

And you know who wins that race?  The Republican, even though Sinema only got like 5% of the vote. 

[Rippounet]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He doesn’t have to be brave or able to answer hard questions to have serious negative impact.  Do you remember what you asked him?

Something about the USA Patriot Act (the man worked on that with W's administration).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Something about the USA Patriot Act (the man worked on that with W's administration).

He sounds like a slug who cares not a whit about actual process but only achieving his desired outcome.

[Zorral]

18 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

That's one of the theories, as the ticket would've been 35,000 bucks.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney got outed by the Museum and the Gala's Board for demanding comp tix to the event in 2016. AOC was an invited guest at the last Gala. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re Griner -- We see now one of the Big Reasons, I guess,  for better or worse, Biden had that meeting with the House in Saudi Arabia. 

[Gaston de Foix]

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He sounds like a slug who cares not a whit about actual process but only achieving his desired outcome.

The emergence of common-good constitutionalism is actually a salutary thing, IMHO (bear with me).  The facade of originalism is that it is a neutral method.  In fact it is reverse-engineered to generate traditionalist outcomes.  When you talk about "text", "history" and "tradition" what you are really doing is enshrining an anti-novelty principle into constitutional law. 

That was all well and good when the goal was to stop those terrible liberal judges from exercising the judicial power to frustrate the popular will and when the Republicans dreamt of winning majorities under the existing rules.   Now they just want to use SC control to enshrine their preferred policy outcomes.  

We will all be better served if judges dropped the veneer that the text or history, or tradition of the first amendment justified Citizens United.  

Or the 2nd amendment is best explained by Bruen.  My favorite example is the moment when Kavanaugh asked at Bruen's oral argument whether the 2nd amendment meant that either "open carry" or "concealed carry" was constitutionally required.  Bruen didn't go that far, but there is a word for a judicial holding inventing that kind of rule and that word is legislation.   If the conservative majority on the SC wants to impose these policy outcomes on the American people, they should do so forthrightly rather than hide behind the pretence of original public meaning.  

The problem with common-good constitutionalism is not that it is a moral reading of the constitution, just that it is the wrong moral reading.  The American people will never support it.  

[Fez]

The Sinema stuff does make me wonder about a hypothetical that won't happen but I'm curious about anyway:

A single senator who refuses to caucus with either Democrats or Republicans simply won't get any committee assignments. This is known. But how big a bloc of independent/3rd party senators is needed before the committees actually do have to be re-organized to account for them? Is that in the senate rules anywhere? Like if the Bull Moose party came back and magically got 10 senate seats, would that be enough to get their own reserved seats on each committee?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

The emergence of common-good constitutionalism is actually a salutary thing, IMHO (bear with me).  The facade of originalism is that it is a neutral method.  In fact it is reverse-engineered to generate traditionalist outcomes.  When you talk about "text", "history" and "tradition" what you are really doing is enshrining an anti-novelty principle into constitutional law. 

That was all well and good when the goal was to stop those terrible liberal judges from exercising the judicial power to frustrate the popular will and when the Republicans dreamt of winning majorities under the existing rules.   Now they just want to use SC control to enshrine their preferred policy outcomes.  

We will all be better served if judges dropped the veneer that the text or history, or tradition of the first amendment justified Citizens United.  

Or the 2nd amendment is best explained by Bruen.  My favorite example is the moment when Kavanaugh asked at Bruen's oral argument whether the 2nd amendment meant that either "open carry" or "concealed carry" was constitutionally required.  Bruen didn't go that far, but there is a word for a judicial holding inventing that kind of rule and that word is legislation.   If the conservative majority on the SC wants to impose these policy outcomes on the American people, they should do so forthrightly rather than hide behind the pretence of original public meaning.  

The problem with common-good constitutionalism is not that it is a moral reading of the constitution, just that it is the wrong moral reading.  The American people will never support it.  

I believe in Textualism.  If we can make the Constitution say anything we want it to say it is already dead letter.  Gorsuch’s reading “Sex” to include “sexual orientation” was a beautiful application of “Textualism” arriving at a result his compatriots may not have agreed to politically.  

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Thank you for sharing.  I’ve never seen that before.  It is terrifying.  

A framework of Constitutional interpretation that would provide a legal vener for Dominionists in their efforts to destroy and replace pluralistic democracy in the United States.

Well, perhaps, but Dominionists are basically right-wing Protestants from Calvinistic or Pentecostal backgrounds, and these people are said to mostly be Roman Catholics from the right-wing "integralist" group within Catholicism. It will be very interesting actually to see if they are able to overcome their traditional theological hatred of each other to co-operate on their dictatorial political ideals. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Well, perhaps, but Dominionists are basically right-wing Protestants from Calvinistic or Pentecostal backgrounds, and these people are said to mostly be Roman Catholics from the right-wing "integralist" group within Catholicism. It will be very interesting actually to see if they are able to overcome their traditional theological hatred of each other to co-operate on their dictatorial political ideals. 

They could ally to take control assuming they’ll take out their allies at a later date…

[DMC]

57 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But the fact that she's a sitting senator means that she'll probably get at least a few votes from Independents and Democrats who fall for her mavericky shtick (ooh look she's so independent when she does whatever her corporate overlords pay her to do).   

I could easily imagine a scenario with these splits between Democratic nominee, Sinema and the Republican.

Democrats:  90/8/2

Independents:  45/10/45

Republicans:  2/3/95

And you know who wins that race?  The Republican, even though Sinema only got like 5% of the vote. 

I dunno, we'll see, I don't think the above scenario should be assumed at all just yet.  In the AARP poll I linked above Sinema actually had higher unfavorables among Democrats than Republicans.  And we should keep in mind that the Arizona Republican Party is absolutely batshit that just nominated Blake Masters for Senate.  It's possible the race ends up looking like Florida 2010 when Crist ran as an Independent, but it's also possible Sinema's support takes just as many votes from the Republican nominee as the Democrat.

While it's a smart move by Sinema to avoid a Democratic primary, it's still a desperation move.  It's obviously designed to scare off Dems from running, but will it work?  Again, it's early, and it's still possible Sinema eventually recognizes she doesn't have a shot and decides not to run or drops out at a certain point.

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

A single senator who refuses to caucus with either Democrats or Republicans simply won't get any committee assignments. This is known. But how big a bloc of independent/3rd party senators is needed before there's the committees actually do have to be re-organized to account for them? Is that in the senate rules anywhere? Like if the Bull Moose party came back and magically got 10 senate seats, would that be enough to get their own reserved seats on each committee?

Yeah I don't know the answer to this question.  Not sure anybody does because I doubt there are any Senate rules on it.

[Gaston de Foix]

 

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I believe in Textualism.  If we can make the Constitution say anything we want it to say it is already dead letter.  Gorsuch’s reading “Sex” to include “sexual orientation” was a beautiful application of “Textualism” arriving at a result his compatriots may not have agreed to politically.  

Sure, sure in terms of statutory interpretation.  So does Kagan.  It's a much different proposition for constitutional interpretation. 

[Gaston de Foix]

12 minutes ago, Fez said:

The Sinema stuff does make me wonder about a hypothetical that won't happen but I'm curious about anyway:

A single senator who refuses to caucus with either Democrats or Republicans simply won't get any committee assignments. This is known. But how big a bloc of independent/3rd party senators is needed before the committees actually do have to be re-organized to account for them? Is that in the senate rules anywhere? Like if the Bull Moose party came back and magically got 10 senate seats, would that be enough to get their own reserved seats on each committee?

They could and would negotiate changes to the Senate rules wouldn't they? I imagine they would ensure equal treatment for their members as majority-makers for one or other party. 

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

While it's a smart move by Sinema to avoid a Democratic primary, it's still a desperation move.  It's obviously designed to scare off Dems from running, but will it work?  Again, it's early, and it's still possible Sinema eventually recognizes she doesn't have a shot and decides not to run or drops out at a certain point.

It should be medium obvious that Sinema has no path to victory in a 3 way race during a presidential year.  Senators are often delusional, but that isn't exactly rocket science that if you're relying on 35% of the state to do split ticket voting from how they voted for President, you don't have much chance.  So IMO the best hope is that Sinema realizes this and just doesn't run for reelection.  Certainly possible.

I will say that IF she runs, the idea that she would siphon as many or more Republican votes as Democratic votes to be very unlikely.  I think a 3 way race is at the very least a big advantage for the Republicans.  Hopefully we won't have to find out.