US Politics, unnumbered

[TrackerNeil]

SCOTUS has way to much power, and absolutely zero accountability. The way Abortion is being handled in this country, and the strategies political parties have in place to either preserve or alter the laws on the books, illustrates the ridiculousness of the 'constitutionality' of a law. If the constitutionality of a law is in dispute for decades, and that dispute is being used as a wedge issue in political campaigns, something is either very wrong with The Constitution or the method we have in place to interpret it.

Isn't is possible the constitutionality of the law is in question because people have strong, sharply divided opinions on abortion?

Look, it's not as if there is one utterly correct interpretation of the Constitution that the right group of nine justices can find; different justices have different opinions as to what the Constitution means. What's considered unconstitutional today might pass muster in ten years, as has often been the case throughout our nation's history. I don't see how we "fix" that except to radically change human nature and the immutable fact that, oftentimes, people just disagree.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

Isn't is possible the constitutionality of the law is in question because people have strong, sharply divided opinions on abortion?

Look, it's not as if there is one utterly correct interpretation of the Constitution that the right group of nine justices can find; different justices have different opinions as to what the Constitution means. What's considered unconstitutional today might pass muster in ten years, as has often been the case throughout our nation's history. I don't see how we "fix" that except to radically change human nature and the immutable fact that, oftentimes, people just disagree.

People can disagree all they want about abortion, There however should be no more honest debate over the Constitutionality of abortion then is possible of a woman's right to vote. No radical alteration of human nature was required to make the nineteenth amendment comprehensible absent decades of controversy and an endless push to stack the court in order to overturn the current interpretation. I figure our government is capable of crafting an amendment that will settle the Constitutionality of abortion as well.

Any issue people have strong, sharply decided opinions about should not be settled by a decades long battle to stack SCOTUS with people who agree with your interpretation. In any such case where such honest disagreement is possible, you have a failing of The Constitution that needs to be remedied via amendment.

[Fez]

Fun news from Iraq:

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's Shiite-led government issued an arrest warrant Monday for Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, the country's highest ranking Sunni official, on terrorism charges.

The move, a day after the last U.S. troops left Iraq and ended the nearly nine-year war, signaled a sharp new escalation in sectarian tensions that drove Iraq to the brink of civil war just a few years ago.

But you know what? Not our problem anymore! Rather liberating, that feeling. And to think that Republicans were still complaining last week about our withdrawal.

[TrackerNeil]

I figure our government is capable of crafting an amendment that will settle the Constitutionality of abortion as well.

Any issue people have strong, sharply decided opinions about should not be settled by a decades long battle to stack SCOTUS with people who agree with your interpretation. In any such case where such honest disagreement is possible, you have a failing of The Constitution that needs to be remedied via amendment.

Our government is perfectly capable of settling the abortion issue via constitutional amendment, except for one small detail: there's no consensus for how that issue should be settled. It's not a failing of the Constitution that Americans can't agree on abortion policy; that's just plain old disagreement. No constitutional amendment can prevent disagreement, nor should it; part of democracy is the tussle over controversial issues.

I agree with you that we shouldn't solve issues by stacking the court with people inclined towards one side or another, but I don't see the alternative. Perhaps one day we will invent sentient judge robots, incapable of bias, who will resolve these matters for us, but until then we'll have to make do with human beings appointed and confirmed through the political process. It's not always pretty, but neither is democracy.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Boehner can't control the crazies that were voted in, and Obama did offer such a thing, so this is garbage. I do appreciate your numbers on the top marginal tax rate. A couple comments:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 28% rate only stay in place for a very short time?

Right. It got raised by his successor, and then raised even more by Clinton. This is why the whole "these guy's aren't like Reagan" argument is just strange to me. Democrats are pushing to have those rates raised more than 10% above where they were under Reagan, yet some Democrats argue that opposing that kind of a tax increase is "UnReagan".

Clinton's hike led to a balanced budget during the best economic decade in modern history. Do you appreciate how much this undercuts the current GOP stance on taxes?

Correlation does not equal causation.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This may have already been talked about but I'm way behind in the thread.

But I am genuinely curious about this, and opportunity. I know FLOW you have argued previously that anyone who has the right desire/impetus can make their way in the US.

No. it is entirely possible that bad luck, external events, or national/international conditions may make that difficult or impossible at a given time.

But I would have thought it is generally accepted that College is one of the main ways to that.

Yeah, one of the ways.

Yes, you can learn a trade (if you can get an apprenticeship/job - bloody hard), but the vast bulk of the higher paying jobs are ones which require a degree. And lets face it, unless you get some money you can't become an entrepreneur/start anything as you need money to do so (or a 1 in a million idea).

I can't speak for apprenticeship programs where you are, but I can say I know a lot of Americans who managed to get jobs in skilled trades without any great difficulty. I know guys with their own plumbing/electrical businesses, garage or body shops, etc. I know of other people with basic degrees or sometimes just diplomas who have gotten into sales, done well, advanced, made money, etc.

So if a large chunk of the best jobs and the best ways of earning additional money to invest/become an entrepreneur are connected to having a degree, but the ability to get a degree is restricted or bloody difficult for someone without any money - is this a real restriction on the ability for anyone of any class to make it well?

I'm not sure how to answer that because our starting assumptions are so far apart. For the most part, if you do above-average in high school, you can get into a college -- maybe not your first choice but you can still get in -- and get a degree. Most can't afford a private college, but public ones are more reasonably priced. You may have to work a job while you're in college, and/or take out loans, but you can do it. It's certainly not easy, but why should it be?

Also, I feel compelled to go back to this point about the alleged decline of the American Dream. Well, back when it supposedly was alive and well, a much smaller percentage of people were going to college.

And if so, isn't that a problem for society?

No.

Is it a problem if entrepreneurship is linked to college degrees (studies have shown it is) but that the next generation are coming out of college with debts that will wipe out any hope of taking on a risk/new idea/business for many many years? I would have thought that would generally hurt the US society.

You can be an entrepeneur without a degree, or you can be one with a degree. It usually takes a lot of initiative, a good idea, a willingness to work very hard for awhile, etc. The idea that you can just sort of go with the flow, go to college because it's "expected" and you need to figure out what you want to do with your life, and some great job or entrepeneurial activity will fall out of the sky was never true.

HOWEVER, I do think that economic opportunity is more limited than it used to be. But then, I think that is very largely a choice we've unwittingly made by endorsing a larger, more intrusive government. We've added more government benefits and entitlements, we've added regulatory costs, we've put more restrictions on businesses, and we've made it all sufficiently complicated that you need batches of legal advice to try to make a go of a business, and to keep it running.

We're reaping what we've sown, and of course the reaction to that is going to be to push for more government action to help make things "fair". Well, good luck with all that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Correlation does not necessarily point to causation, but it often does.

Do you think there were any factors independent of Clinton's 1993 tax bill that led to declining deficits? I mean, those tax increases didn't take effect until 1994 at the earliest, and yet, the deficit was already dropping in 1993.

Surely you wouldn't argue that tax increases by GHWB and Clinton had nothing to do with balancing the budget nor were they crushing to economic growth.

Bush's tax increases were followed by a recession. By the time Clinton took office in 1993, though, the normal economic cycle had us on a scheduled upswing anyway. I'd agree that Clinton's tax hikes weren't "crushing", but that doesn't mean they were a net benefit, because how the economy would have performed absent Clinton's tax hikes is unknown. Unless you think it is pure coincidence that our first balanced budgets in decades happened to follow the ending of the Cold War and a major decline in military spending.

Anyway, like I said, I really don't care to argue that. It might be a fun issue for the candidates to debate next year because it provides some fodder for both sides. The issue I was addressing was whether not agreeing to a tax increase that would raise the top rate to 39.6% was somehow "anti-Reagan".

[The Kassi (mark two)]

Our government is perfectly capable of settling the abortion issue via constitutional amendment, except for one small detail: there's no consensus for how that issue should be settled. It's not a failing of the Constitution that Americans can't agree on abortion policy; that's just plain old disagreement. No constitutional amendment can prevent disagreement, nor should it; part of democracy is the tussle over controversial issues.

I agree with you that we shouldn't solve issues by stacking the court with people inclined towards one side or another, but I don't see the alternative. Perhaps one day we will invent sentient judge robots, incapable of bias, who will resolve these matters for us, but until then we'll have to make do with human beings appointed and confirmed through the political process. It's not always pretty, but neither is democracy.

You are talking about the issue, and how it is to be resolved. I am talking about interpretation of a legal document. SCOTUS is in the business of the second, and has absolutely no role in the first. Regardless of your stance on a particular issue, educated people who study the law as a career should be able to come together and agree about just what our founding documents do, or do not say. If they can not, then amendment is required. If the government is unable to resolve the issue, it is not the role of the courts to do it for them.

No Magical science fiction robot judges are required if we treat The Constitution as a living document, rather then holding contents to see which political party gets an opportunity to appoint someone who's job is to pretend the Founding Fathers agreed with their patron. If we are going to treat SCOTUS as a political office, then we need to stop pretending that The Constitution has a role in our government and start electing judges rather then making them lifetime appointments.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You are talking about the issue, and how it is to be resolved. I am talking about interpretation of a legal document. SCOTUS is in the business of the second, and has absolutely no role in the first. Regardless of your stance on a particular issue, educated people who study the law as a career should be able to come together and agree about just what our founding documents do, or do not say. If they can not, then amendment is required. If the government is unable to resolve the issue, it is not the role of the courts to do it for them.

I happen to agree with most of that, but there are plenty of people who do not. There is quite a vocal POV that believes it is the job of the Supreme Court to do what is "right" if the political branches are unable or unwilling to act on an issue deemed sufficiently important by those holding that POV. My Constitutional Law professor was very upfront about his believe in that POV.

No Magical science fiction robot judges are required if we treat The Constitution as a living document, rather then holding contents to see which political party gets an opportunity to appoint someone who's job is to pretend the Founding Fathers agreed with their patron. If we are going to treat SCOTUS as a political office, then we need to stop pretending that The Constitution has a role in our government and start electing judges rather then making them lifetime appointments.

There seems to be a contradiction between this paragraph and your first. In your first, you said that "educated people who study the law as a career should be able to come together and agree about just what our founding documents do, or do not say." But in this paragraph, you disparage "holding contests to see which political party gets an opportunity to appoint someone whose job is to pretend the Fouding Fathers agreed with their patron."

Are you saying that we should just throw up our hands and go to elected judges, or not?

[Lightning Lord]

FLOW, when do you think the American Dream was alive and well? And are you defining the American Dream as "Anyone who works hard can make it in America"?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW, when do you think the American Dream was alive and well? And are you defining the American Dream as "Anyone who works hard can make it in America"?

My version of the "American Dream" is freedom from tyranny, which I think was alive and well here for a very long time. To a large (though diminishing) extent, it still is. I do not believe it is "freedom" from the vagaries or material demands of nature or of the world.

The "American Dream" as it is described in your second question is a relatively recent invention that I think is a perversion. To many, the "American Dream" is no longer about freedom, but rather a set of discrete economic results that we are supposed to obtain if we "work hard". And progress being what it is, "work hard" has lost some of its old meaning anyway.

Anyway, my point in all of this is that when a lot of people lament the loss of "the American Dream" -- which folks have done in various places here -- they are really referring to that second version of the "American Dream". And so my response to them is that if you believe it that Dream is now "lost", or "unattainable", then maybe you should take a closer look at the period during which you think it was alive, and ask yourself what is different between then and now that might account for that difference.

[Lightning Lord]

Thanks for the clarification. Your second version is what I hear about most often in political rhetoric and it's just a fun myth to trot out as a sound bite. I didn't know if you were trying to claim that at some point in the past it was a reality.

Politicians on both sides use it as often as "I won't raise taxes" and "Sure I'm a Christian" and it's as meaningless as those other platitudes.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Thanks for the clarification. Your second version is what I hear about most often in political rhetoric and it's just a fun myth to trot out as a sound bite. I didn't know if you were trying to claim that at some point in the past it was a reality.

Politicians on both sides use it as often as "I won't raise taxes" and "Sure I'm a Christian" and it's as meaningless as those other platitudes.

It's a tool that fits the hand that wields it. If you're a conservative, you push it so as to idealize a time of less government. If you're a liberal, you push it as a tool of class warfare. Like I said, I always thought the real "Dream" was simply freedom. After that, it's up to you.

[Lightning Lord]

It's a tool that fits the hand that wields it. If you're a conservative, you push it so as to idealize a time of less government. If you're a liberal, you push it as a tool of class warfare. Like I said, I always thought the real "Dream" was simply freedom. After that, it's up to you.

I disagree with your assessment of the "Dream." It's freedom as long as you match or make every effort to match the dominant culture. Otherwise, it's "Tough bananas, try to conform a bit more. We said 'melting pot,' not 'do your own thing.'" Americans have a long and proud tradition of oppressing people outside of the dominant, ruling culture.

ETA: FLOW, stop looking at my avatar. I am more than just a pic of Dushku.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I disagree with your assessment of the "Dream." It's freedom as long as you match or make every effort to match the dominant culture. Otherwise, it's "Tough bananas, try to conform a bit more. We said 'melting pot,' not 'do your own thing.'" Americans have a long and proud tradition of oppressing people outside of the dominant, ruling culture.

Can you give an example here, because I really don't know what you're talking about. I mean, if you

are talking slavery or Jim Crow, I get it. Otherwise, I don't.

Not being accepted socially by other people in society, for whatever reason, is part and parcel of their right to be free. I can hate you for any reason I chose as long as I don't violate the law in doing so, or use the law to oppress you.

ETA: FLOW, stop looking at my avatar. I am more than just a pic of Dushku.

This went over my head for a second. Well played.

[Shryke]

My version of the "American Dream" is freedom from tyranny, which I think was alive and well here for a very long time. To a large (though diminishing) extent, it still is. I do not believe it is "freedom" from the vagaries or material demands of nature or of the world.

The "American Dream" as it is described in your second question is a relatively recent invention that I think is a perversion. To many, the "American Dream" is no longer about freedom, but rather a set of discrete economic results that we are supposed to obtain if we "work hard". And progress being what it is, "work hard" has lost some of its old meaning anyway.

Anyway, my point in all of this is that when a lot of people lament the loss of "the American Dream" -- which folks have done in various places here -- they are really referring to that second version of the "American Dream". And so my response to them is that if you believe it that Dream is now "lost", or "unattainable", then maybe you should take a closer look at the period during which you think it was alive, and ask yourself what is different between then and now that might account for that difference.

Higher taxes?

[Lightning Lord]

It's not Stalin, but there are other forms of tyranny. It's the tyranny of We're in charge and you're not. If you want part of the power, you'd better try to be one of "us." It's seen in the historically low rates of representation of minorities in government, education, business leaders, high-end professions (such as lawyer, doctor).

You think it's a coincidence that almost 90% of lawyers are white?

My point is: there are lower-end opportunities, but not high end. More than half of Congress are former lawyers, not too many are listed as "mechanics" or "plumbers."

[Horza]

My point is: there are lower-end opportunities, but not high end. More than half of Congress are former lawyers, not too many are listed as "mechanics" or "plumbers."

Not too many, no.

[TrackerNeil]

"Class warfare" drives me fucking crazy.

Me as well. It's a very clever conservative use of language to de-legitimize any discussion of income inequality.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

There seems to be a contradiction between this paragraph and your first. In your first, you said that "educated people who study the law as a career should be able to come together and agree about just what our founding documents do, or do not say." But in this paragraph, you disparage "holding contests to see which political party gets an opportunity to appoint someone whose job is to pretend the Fouding Fathers agreed with their patron."

Are you saying that we should just throw up our hands and go to elected judges, or not?

I am saying if the first is impossible, then we need to do the second. I however do not think the first is impossible, doing it just means taking the federal government out of anything not explicitly spelled out in The Constitution until the American people can come to an agreement on how it should be handled. That fight would really suck, but the end result would be a system that functioned better, and more honestly.

In order to function as a non-political entity, the Supreme Court needs to be the tool we use to keep government from overstepping it's authority, rather then the method the government uses to overstep it's authority, once it is finally able to stack the bench.