US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3632

On April 19 2016 12:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:

Nonetheless, the states are still the main plaintiffs, and it will be a core issue of the court (at least, from what the oral arguments went). The issue of state standing on immigration issues is a major legal question that must be addressed before the case can be addressed. www.scotusblog.com. For the most part, I look at the case and would say that Texas' standing is negligible, as the issuance of licenses and license plates to undocumented immigrants does not really either constitute a major impact on state budgets, or note the pre-existing effects that undocumented migrants have on both the state economies (negative and, largely, positive). In the case of Mass v. EPA, the states could point to health and public welfare at risk from the EPA's stance on various GHG emissions, and that the EPA did indeed have the authority to regulate those emissions. Here, the argument is the relatively trivial budgetary impact of issuing drivers licenses (which itself is offset by license applications fees).

The argument between Executive v. Congressional authority will be trickier, granted, but see below.



I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate? If you mean a new definition of "legal resident" through DAPA, that is one of the core arguments here. The states (and the House) are arguing that the term "legal presence" constitutes an new class of "legal resident" and promises a pathway to citizenship, which would be something that only Congress may legislate. DAPA does not seek to do this, as it only relies on deferred action, in which the deportation of an undocumented migrant. This is a well-established and accepted discretionary tool of the DHS, and in current immigration law, this creates the notion of the migrant being "legally present" in the United States during the deferral. I find it a hard sell for the plaintiffs to say that this decision to use deferred action on a national level in regards to parents will create a new definition of "legal resident", when it relies entirely on prior practices here.


Having just read the oral arguments that have been made, I'm fairly confident we're going to be seeing a 5-3 ruling, MAYBE 6-2.

The defense mostly focused on the standing of the case, which was something that the liberal judges on the court were keen to to jump on. Most notably, Kennedy seemed to hold Texas' standing in heavy disfavor. It appears that Justice Roberts is inclined to accept Texas' standing (in contrast to what I wrote earlier before reading the arguments), as is Alito and Thomas (by silent consent).

The primary argument that the plaintiffs (Texas and the House of Representatives) are making primarily focus both on the validity of the standing (but then again, the arguments were extended to address the issue of state standing here, so it's not unexpected), but also specifically on the use of the word "legal presence". Most notably, they did not bring up the argument of the "Take Care clause", which indeed has not even discussed through the entirety of today (which leads me to believe that this argument is effectively dead).

The problem with the focus on the "legal presence" argument, however, is both the above (in regards to deferred action and "legally present"), and that the primary argument from the Obama administration on this front is that the term is ultimately meaningless, aside from some technicalities of Social Security benefits, and that the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them.

This makes the argument that the states' are making very risky, if the core argument they're relying upon can be addressed so readily.

Also,
www.scotusblog.com

hat the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them.

On April 19 2016 12:26 oneofthem wrote:

what are you even talking about? no campaign is unilateral and why would you even use unilateral in this context

how does hillary being behind in money help your argument?

On April 19 2016 07:51 oneofthem wrote:
point is you are linking an 'analysis' piece while giving a 'source'. this is not news or truefax.

the issue itself is akin to bernie taking tax deductions. within the current legal landscape pacs are the strategic equilibrium. if you dont use them you lose. this is nothing but an intentionally obtuse piece of attack

On April 19 2016 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:


No one else is using the loopholes she's using, that's what's "unilateral". It can't be for someone else's if the someone else also doesn't have one.

Hillary's using every trick in the book to circumvent donation rules and she's still getting outraised by a campaign that's refusing to use the loopholes she's using. So the notion that you have to manipulate the system like she to raise money is not only wrong, it's not even as effective as Bernie's fundraising. Of the 5 people in the race Hillary's fundraising can only be compared to Cruz's and even he isn't using all the loopholes she is. She is unquestionably the candidate with the shadiest fundraising but she's still not even keeping up with the guy who has the most honest (and closest to what Dems say they want) fundraising operation.

On April 19 2016 16:00 Velr wrote:
If she would be an actually good candidate, Bernie would have never taken off like he did. Obama would also not have won his election. Simple fact is, that "the People" don't really like Hillary.
She might be a good politican and could make a good president, but she is not a good candidate. If her husband wouldn't be Bill Clinton, she would be nowhere near were she is now, she just lacks Charisma.

IIRC she doesn't even denie this herself?

On April 19 2016 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Hilary is the only Candidate in the democratic primary actually fundraising money for the senators and congressmen she needs to get thinks passed. Because, unlike Sanders, she understands that you don't simply hope that your allies win the midterms--you do the work to get them funding also.

The idea is that the committee will help the state parties raise money for their general election efforts, an area where Clinton’s allies argue that her insurgent rival for the Democratic presidential nomination Bernie Sanders has done little. Sanders has a joint fundraising committee, as well, but it has been relatively inactive.

Yet, during the first three months of the year, the $2 million transferred by the Hillary Victory Fund to various state party committees paled in comparison to the $9.5 million it transferred to Clinton’s campaign committee or the $3.5 million it transferred to the DNC.

And the Hillary Victory Fund also spent $6.7 million on online ads that mostly looked like Clinton campaign ads, as well as $5.5 million on direct marketing. Both expenses seem intended at least in part to help Clinton build a small donor base, an area in which Sanders has far outpaced her.

FEC reports filed Friday showed that Clinton’s campaign and joint fundraising committee received a total of $1.8 million in checks bundled by lobbyists, including Tony Podesta (the brother of her campaign chairman John Podesta), former Sen. Mary Landrieu and energy lobbyist Ankit Nitin Desai.

On April 19 2016 18:41 Gorsameth wrote:
A good to see the vote suppression whining has already started, been sooner then expected tho.

Later today we will have News media calling the result to early and another few dozen cases of "fraud" where all but one will be hot air and one might have some traction but be lost in the desperate attempt of throwing dirt at the wall.

And ofcourse ending with a mighty "we can still win!".

On April 19 2016 23:00 ticklishmusic wrote:
Reasons I don't take the Sanders FEC accusation seriously:

1. They're about to get rekt in NY (regardless of voting problems)
2. They're fundraising off this like everything else
3. They've been sinking deeper and deeper the last few weeks

The fact that the Sanders campaign is the one with 3 FEC violations and $23m in illegal/excess contributions is just icing on the shit cake.

Also the Clinton + Sanders campaigns are jointly suing Arizona over voting issues. So there's that.

On April 19 2016 23:09 Mohdoo wrote:
Sanders has had a few failed attacks regarding similar things already. Remember Arizona? The way that was framed as somehow having to do with Clinton was ridiculous. As Sanders continues to lose hope, his attacks have gotten stronger and less dignified. This FEC thing is just the great kaboom at the end. Once he loses today, that campaign is over. I don't know many people who intend to stick around after NY. Only the 3-4 Bernie or bust kids intend to continue past new york.

On April 19 2016 23:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
You asked I delivered

270 pages of excess/ illegal contributions to the Sanders campaign

On April 19 2016 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote:


A lot more happened in Arizona than Hillary supporters are comfortable admitting. That you all opted to ignore the clear problem to insult Bernie's supporters speaks volumes.

On April 19 2016 23:22 Mohdoo wrote:


You have to realize that there are things people will read and not believe. The issue is that I am not convinced of accuracy, not that I am saying it's ok. These tweets and other shit about suppression at the polls is meaningless to me. It's not even remotely credible.

On April 19 2016 23:21 Plansix wrote:
GH, I always wonder if you are aware that a big reason why people are so dismissive of Sanders in this thread is your love of talking down to people with almost every post. That your advocacy for him and attacks on anyone with even the mildest criticism of his campaign have resulted in a lot of people on the fence to just want him to lose.