In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
"progressive" is relative as well, in terms of social progression HRC is pretty progressive. In other issues shes more conservative, the meaning of these words often gets lost though and is incredibly vague to the point where people think "progressive" is everything democrats want and "conservative" is everything Republicans want.
The Obama administration has begun a quiet push to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions created by transportation projects, a new front in the president’s global fight to limit climate change.
Administration officials told POLITICO they are about to propose rules that could force recipients of federal transportation dollars to track transportation-related emissions and set goals for cutting them. There are no plans for federal targets or penalties, but the hope is that making state and regional infrastructure planners take climate impacts into consideration will encourage smarter growth, mass transit, electric vehicles and other emissions reduction strategies, while discouraging sprawl-inducing exurban roads to nowhere.
U.S. vehicle emissions have doubled since the 1970s, and now make up more than one-fourth of all U.S. emissions. In February, President Obama unveiled a $320 billion plan for a “21st century clean transportation system” funded by a $10-per-barrel tax on oil, but it was dead on arrival in the Republican Congress. Environmental groups and some blue-state transportation officials have pushed performance measures for greenhouse gases as a way for Obama to take unilateral action, and after months of internal debate, the administration is moving ahead with them, hoping to nudge U.S. infrastructure planning in a greener direction.
“You can’t manage what you don’t measure,” a senior Department of Transportation official told POLITICO. “This is groundbreaking stuff.”
The new Federal Highway Administration rulemaking aims to require recipients of federal transportation dollars—mostly states, cities and metropolitan planning organizations—to monitor, report and set targets to improve their performance on a variety of categories laid out in the 2012 transportation bill, including travel reliability, peak-hour congestion, freight movements, and on-road emissions of pollutants like ozone and soot. The original bill did not specifically address greenhouse gases, but the Department of Transportation—after some tense meetings with White House environmental and budget officials—will also seek comment on whether and how to establish performance measures for climate-related pollution. The administration hopes to finalize the rule before the end of the year, forcing state and local officials to account for the emissions generated by their asphalt for the first time.
The rules would not prescribe or prohibit specific projects, but it’s no secret that in the transportation world, concern about climate usually translates into concern about new and wider roads. Nick Goldstein, vice president for regulatory affairs with the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, warned that a mandate for agencies to set climate targets could be used as a pretext to discourage highway construction at a time when America desperately needs better infrastructure. He suggested the Obama administration has embraced an anti-asphalt mentality that assumes new roads produce demand for more cars and exurban development, when Goldstein believes they merely accommodate existing demand.
On April 20 2016 00:35 Velr wrote: Real question: "do people see the Clintons as progressive?"
All I see from them, as a person that cringes at half of plansix post, is common sense progressism (is that a word?), like equal rights for LG.. people and stuff like this.
Progressive is sort of a vague term. I am very progressive when it comes to social issues. I am extremely pragmatic when it comes to sweeping policy changes in healthcare. This is because a pretty sour about the ACA and how much of a fight that was with the super left members of the democratic party, which is should have been easy with a super majority.
And its fine if you don’t like my views, I roll my eyes at a lot of the gate keeping by a “progressives” that really just want to call everyone who doesn’t agree with them Republicans. And as I am older than most of the people in this thread, I have been a progressive for a lot longer and I’m really not looking for younger progressive’s approval.
I know the terms have rhetorical connotations, but do you see how to some progressives folks like yourself literally fit the definition of conservative on things like Healthcare?
So when people say things like that, while they may not use the right words, they kinda have a point. There is clearly a generational divide though, while people of all ages show support for Sanders, nowhere is the race more one-sided than with folks under 30. The future of the party is in the vein of Bernie, not Hillary, that much has been made clear.
On April 18 2016 23:44 Mohdoo wrote: Predictions for today's immigration ruling? I think it's gonna go 4-4.
6-2 most likely, otherwise a 5-3.
Justice Kennedy has previously voted (and written the majority opinion) largely favor of the federal government in the case of illegal immigration: specifically the highly important Arizona v. United States, which should be noted was a 5-3 opinion, with Kagan not participating (Kagan would almost certainly have joined with the majority, however).
Roberts is also very much likely to take a dim view of the states' justification and evidence of injury (they're claiming injury from the drivers licenses they'd have to issue to undocumented immigrants), and his record shows that he's been very cautious about expanding the avenues through which an entity (individual, corporation, and state) can sue or litigate, and it's highly improbable that he will accept Texas' argument and evidence for injury (being highly flimsy at best, and overly political at worst).
There is no chance of a 4-4.
Final note, the opening arguments were made today. It won't be decided until much later.
The thing about the standing issue, is Texas almost certainly has standing under the most recent precedents in the Mass. v. EPA case.
A second issue I see with the standing point is that Texas could argue (and would be correct in my estimation) that if they changed their eligibility standards for drivers licenses and invented their own non-federal standard they would be sued. And probably sued successfully by an immigrant advocacy group that points to the Arizona case and says "Immigration is the domain of the Federal government." So IMO, standing is pinched between a rock and a hard place (if you are intellectually honest, which is always an issue for the Court).
On the substantive side, I say its a toss up and have no idea what will happen.
In Mass vs EPA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in the caseagainst the majority, with his primary argument being that the states did not provide an adequate basis for injury. While Mass vs EPA was a successful case on behalf of the state, I'm fairly confident Roberts is still a tossup due to the issue of standing.
Even if Roberts does not, Kennedy has generally set the precedent that he favors a much more expansive role of the federal government in the formulation of immigration policy, and is extremely likely to side with the 4 liberal justices on this one, based on Arizona v. United States.
The reason Kennedy is an unknown is because its not the state vs. Feds on this. Its statutory interpretation (Congress vs. Executive) and its just that the States were the parties with an argument for standing in the most favorable courts.
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.
Also, I'd like your opinion on the "rock and hard place" dilemma Kennedy is in because of Arizona. Isn't Texas re-defining "legal resident" or what not against the rules established by that case?
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.
Here is why I think Arizona complicates the standing issue (I don't know about the other issue, its a basic statutory interpretation issue, so, in other words, complete guesswork) because IMO it makes the fed's argument on lack of standing circular: 1) Texas: We have standing because the definition of ;"legal presence" affects our license programs. 2) SG: No you don't because adopting that standard is your own self inflicted wound. 3) Texas: Arizona says we can't make our own definition of "legally present". 4) SG: So make another standard. 5) Texas: No such standard would pass constitutional muster because of Arizona. We cannot legally inquire into the legitimacy of an immigrant's status, any rule that de facto excluded this class would be instantly challenged in court. 6) SG: Adopt a different standard. 7) Texas: What standard?
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.
Imo you are understanting how much of a loss that is for Obama. The granting of benefits and starting a snowball effect towards amnesty/legitimate legal status is clearly a goal here. Its easy to see this because because if he were to have conceded that no issue would have made it to SCOTUS aside from the "take care clause" argument, which is probably a loser so long as Roberts is on the court.
In many ways, because of Arizona, the standing question is subsumed into the substantive question: Whether this has actually changed the legal status of DAPA beneficiaries, or if its a legitimate use of discretion and resource optimization. Because, if the Federal government has sole authority over immigration (which Arizona is based off of) and states cannot treat persons differently (such as providing different rights and obligations) that the federal government treats as equals (in the immigration sense) then Texas (or any state) is required to follow their determination. Thus, if one is consistent, Arizona confers standing to states whenever immigration policy is changed so they can ensure that it is interpreted exactly according to Congress's intent, because mistakes by the executive branch will always affect them.
Which is one reason Arizona was likely decided incorrectly.
First, I do not believe DAPA is intended to be a gateway towards amnesty/legalization by itself. The goal of DACA and DAPA is to put a moratorium upon deportations until Congress either gets its shit together and/or is voted out of the office. The use of either as an explicit gateway towards citizenship would almost certainly be considered an infringement upon Congressional power, so the goal of these programs from my perspective is a stop-gap until a new administration and a Democratic Congressional majority can push through comprehensive immigration reform.
That being said, given the administration's representatives stated early on the first day that the term could be crossed out if the justices prefer, indicates for me that the Obama administration does not put much stock in the term to be either legally binding or part of a pathway to citizenship.
For myself, I'm expecting the Court in this case to focus mostly on the issue of state standing, and establishing the limits and framework for future cases. DAPA will either survive in its entirety, or the term "legally present" is removed and it's slightly truncated without major effects on the program.
On April 20 2016 00:35 Velr wrote: Real question: "do people see the Clintons as progressive?"
All I see from them, as a person that cringes at half of plansix post, is common sense progressism (is that a word?), like equal rights for LG.. people and stuff like this.
Certainly.
But the current trend is for diehard Sanders supporters to purity test those of us who do think well of Clinton's proposed policies out of the label.
Finally,
A tweet about polls opening late is hardly evidence of fraud or suppression. As someone who will be working as an election judge for my state, call me skeptical given judges are charged with remaining fair and balanced, and are not chosen by the parties (but by the county, bar the two chief judges [one from each party]), and are generally selected from registered voters from both parties. This is likely different between states, but I'd doubt it'd be so much as to allow active sabotage by a few judges without anyone knowing or blowing the whistle
Excuse me if I find the claim that a poll opening late (which has wide room for human error) is evidence for suppression. Long lines, when there is exceptional turnout this year, is also generally a dubious claim (excepting in cases like Arizona where the state government expressly limited the number of polling places).
To be perfectly honest, any times someone uses the term “SJW” I read the post republican about the “liberal media” or “Gay agenda” being against them. It is just a term people use to argue against some ethereal boogeyman, rather than talk about anything of substance. I can’t even describe all the fucks I don’t give about those arguments.
On April 20 2016 00:35 Velr wrote: Real question: "do people see the Clintons as progressive?"
All I see from them, as a person that cringes at half of plansix post, is common sense progressism (is that a word?), like equal rights for LG.. people and stuff like this.
Progressive is sort of a vague term. I am very progressive when it comes to social issues. I am extremely pragmatic when it comes to sweeping policy changes in healthcare. This is because a pretty sour about the ACA and how much of a fight that was with the super left members of the democratic party, which is should have been easy with a super majority.
And its fine if you don’t like my views, I roll my eyes at a lot of the gate keeping by a “progressives” that really just want to call everyone who doesn’t agree with them Republicans. And as I am older than most of the people in this thread, I have been a progressive for a lot longer and I’m really not looking for younger progressive’s approval.
I know the terms have rhetorical connotations, but do you see how to some progressives folks like yourself literally fit the definition of conservative on things like Healthcare?
As defined by you. I am not a democrat. Never have been. I've been an independent all my life.
And I pushed hard for health care reform. But that just, reform. Make big changes and work slowly towards the goal of a single payer or better system that isn't driven by profits. But I didn't want changes so huge that the Supreme Court would throw them out and undo all the work that was done. Because I knew that was a real threat to the process.
And I am in support of almost everything you are pushing for GH. I am just more pragmatic about how quickly it can be done. And very aware how badly they could be fucked up if they are not done correctly. Or that doing them to quickly could lead to a backlash and conservatives being elected that undo all the progress.
On April 18 2016 23:44 Mohdoo wrote: Predictions for today's immigration ruling? I think it's gonna go 4-4.
6-2 most likely, otherwise a 5-3.
Justice Kennedy has previously voted (and written the majority opinion) largely favor of the federal government in the case of illegal immigration: specifically the highly important Arizona v. United States, which should be noted was a 5-3 opinion, with Kagan not participating (Kagan would almost certainly have joined with the majority, however).
Roberts is also very much likely to take a dim view of the states' justification and evidence of injury (they're claiming injury from the drivers licenses they'd have to issue to undocumented immigrants), and his record shows that he's been very cautious about expanding the avenues through which an entity (individual, corporation, and state) can sue or litigate, and it's highly improbable that he will accept Texas' argument and evidence for injury (being highly flimsy at best, and overly political at worst).
There is no chance of a 4-4.
Final note, the opening arguments were made today. It won't be decided until much later.
The thing about the standing issue, is Texas almost certainly has standing under the most recent precedents in the Mass. v. EPA case.
A second issue I see with the standing point is that Texas could argue (and would be correct in my estimation) that if they changed their eligibility standards for drivers licenses and invented their own non-federal standard they would be sued. And probably sued successfully by an immigrant advocacy group that points to the Arizona case and says "Immigration is the domain of the Federal government." So IMO, standing is pinched between a rock and a hard place (if you are intellectually honest, which is always an issue for the Court).
On the substantive side, I say its a toss up and have no idea what will happen.
In Mass vs EPA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in the caseagainst the majority, with his primary argument being that the states did not provide an adequate basis for injury. While Mass vs EPA was a successful case on behalf of the state, I'm fairly confident Roberts is still a tossup due to the issue of standing.
Even if Roberts does not, Kennedy has generally set the precedent that he favors a much more expansive role of the federal government in the formulation of immigration policy, and is extremely likely to side with the 4 liberal justices on this one, based on Arizona v. United States.
The reason Kennedy is an unknown is because its not the state vs. Feds on this. Its statutory interpretation (Congress vs. Executive) and its just that the States were the parties with an argument for standing in the most favorable courts.
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.
Also, I'd like your opinion on the "rock and hard place" dilemma Kennedy is in because of Arizona. Isn't Texas re-defining "legal resident" or what not against the rules established by that case?
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.
Here is why I think Arizona complicates the standing issue (I don't know about the other issue, its a basic statutory interpretation issue, so, in other words, complete guesswork) because IMO it makes the fed's argument on lack of standing circular: 1) Texas: We have standing because the definition of ;"legal presence" affects our license programs. 2) SG: No you don't because adopting that standard is your own self inflicted wound. 3) Texas: Arizona says we can't make our own definition of "legally present". 4) SG: So make another standard. 5) Texas: No such standard would pass constitutional muster because of Arizona. We cannot legally inquire into the legitimacy of an immigrant's status, any rule that de facto excluded this class would be instantly challenged in court. 6) SG: Adopt a different standard. 7) Texas: What standard?
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.
Imo you are understanting how much of a loss that is for Obama. The granting of benefits and starting a snowball effect towards amnesty/legitimate legal status is clearly a goal here. Its easy to see this because because if he were to have conceded that no issue would have made it to SCOTUS aside from the "take care clause" argument, which is probably a loser so long as Roberts is on the court.
In many ways, because of Arizona, the standing question is subsumed into the substantive question: Whether this has actually changed the legal status of DAPA beneficiaries, or if its a legitimate use of discretion and resource optimization. Because, if the Federal government has sole authority over immigration (which Arizona is based off of) and states cannot treat persons differently (such as providing different rights and obligations) that the federal government treats as equals (in the immigration sense) then Texas (or any state) is required to follow their determination. Thus, if one is consistent, Arizona confers standing to states whenever immigration policy is changed so they can ensure that it is interpreted exactly according to Congress's intent, because mistakes by the executive branch will always affect them.
Which is one reason Arizona was likely decided incorrectly.
First, I do not believe DAPA is intended to be a gateway towards amnesty/legalization by itself. The goal of DACA and DAPA is to put a moratorium upon deportations until Congress either gets its shit together and/or is voted out of the office. The use of either as an explicit gateway towards citizenship would almost certainly be considered an infringement upon Congressional power, so the goal of these programs from my perspective is a stop-gap until a new administration and a Democratic Congressional majority can push through comprehensive immigration reform.
That being said, given the administration's representatives stated early on the first day that the term could be crossed out if the justices prefer, indicates for me that the Obama administration does not put much stock in the term to be either legally binding or part of a pathway to citizenship.
For myself, I'm expecting the Court in this case to focus mostly on the issue of state standing, and establishing the limits and framework for future cases. DAPA will either survive in its entirety, or the term "legally present" is removed and it's slightly truncated without major effects on the program.
On April 20 2016 00:35 Velr wrote: Real question: "do people see the Clintons as progressive?"
All I see from them, as a person that cringes at half of plansix post, is common sense progressism (is that a word?), like equal rights for LG.. people and stuff like this.
Certainly.
But the current trend is for diehard Sanders supporters to purity test those of us who do think well of Clinton's proposed policies out of the label.
Finally,
A tweet about polls opening late is hardly evidence of fraud or suppression. As someone who will be working as an election judge for my state, call me skeptical given judges are charged with remaining fair and balanced, and are not chosen by the parties (but by the county, bar the two chief judges [one from each party]), and are generally selected from registered voters from both parties. This is likely different between states, but I'd doubt it'd be so much as to allow active sabotage by a few judges without anyone knowing or blowing the whistle
Excuse me if I find the claim that a poll opening late (which has wide room for human error) is evidence for suppression. Long lines, when there is exceptional turnout this year, is also generally a dubious claim (excepting in cases like Arizona where the state government expressly limited the number of polling places).
Yeah if it were just some random event I'd agree 100%, considering it's just one thing in a long list I'm skeptical to write off incompetence as not being malicious.
For example after the Arizona SoS confirmed they had an inexplicable rash of voter registrations being manipulated we have this
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is demanding an explanation from the city’s Board of Elections after the purge of registered Democrats in Brooklyn has doubled from 63,000 to 126,000.
The Obama administration has begun a quiet push to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions created by transportation projects, a new front in the president’s global fight to limit climate change.
Administration officials told POLITICO they are about to propose rules that could force recipients of federal transportation dollars to track transportation-related emissions and set goals for cutting them. There are no plans for federal targets or penalties, but the hope is that making state and regional infrastructure planners take climate impacts into consideration will encourage smarter growth, mass transit, electric vehicles and other emissions reduction strategies, while discouraging sprawl-inducing exurban roads to nowhere.
U.S. vehicle emissions have doubled since the 1970s, and now make up more than one-fourth of all U.S. emissions. In February, President Obama unveiled a $320 billion plan for a “21st century clean transportation system” funded by a $10-per-barrel tax on oil, but it was dead on arrival in the Republican Congress. Environmental groups and some blue-state transportation officials have pushed performance measures for greenhouse gases as a way for Obama to take unilateral action, and after months of internal debate, the administration is moving ahead with them, hoping to nudge U.S. infrastructure planning in a greener direction.
“You can’t manage what you don’t measure,” a senior Department of Transportation official told POLITICO. “This is groundbreaking stuff.”
The new Federal Highway Administration rulemaking aims to require recipients of federal transportation dollars—mostly states, cities and metropolitan planning organizations—to monitor, report and set targets to improve their performance on a variety of categories laid out in the 2012 transportation bill, including travel reliability, peak-hour congestion, freight movements, and on-road emissions of pollutants like ozone and soot. The original bill did not specifically address greenhouse gases, but the Department of Transportation—after some tense meetings with White House environmental and budget officials—will also seek comment on whether and how to establish performance measures for climate-related pollution. The administration hopes to finalize the rule before the end of the year, forcing state and local officials to account for the emissions generated by their asphalt for the first time.
The rules would not prescribe or prohibit specific projects, but it’s no secret that in the transportation world, concern about climate usually translates into concern about new and wider roads. Nick Goldstein, vice president for regulatory affairs with the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, warned that a mandate for agencies to set climate targets could be used as a pretext to discourage highway construction at a time when America desperately needs better infrastructure. He suggested the Obama administration has embraced an anti-asphalt mentality that assumes new roads produce demand for more cars and exurban development, when Goldstein believes they merely accommodate existing demand.
But the Journal, and many others, missed an important symbolic event that also occurred during the past week. In a markup at midweek, the House Financial Services Committee voted to repeal Title II of the act, the so-called Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), and sent the repeal legislation to the House floor for inclusion in the budget reconciliation process that is now underway.
This was significant because, when the Dodd-Frank Act was passed, Title II was celebrated as the heart of the act. It would, in the inflated language of its supporters and sponsors in the administration and Congress, put an end to problem of Too-Big-To-Fail (TBTF) by providing a mechanism through which the FDIC could take over and resolve the largest nonbank financial firms without the use of taxpayer funds.
On April 20 2016 00:35 Velr wrote: Real question: "do people see the Clintons as progressive?"
All I see from them, as a person that cringes at half of plansix post, is common sense progressism (is that a word?), like equal rights for LG.. people and stuff like this.
Progressive is sort of a vague term. I am very progressive when it comes to social issues. I am extremely pragmatic when it comes to sweeping policy changes in healthcare. This is because a pretty sour about the ACA and how much of a fight that was with the super left members of the democratic party, which is should have been easy with a super majority.
And its fine if you don’t like my views, I roll my eyes at a lot of the gate keeping by a “progressives” that really just want to call everyone who doesn’t agree with them Republicans. And as I am older than most of the people in this thread, I have been a progressive for a lot longer and I’m really not looking for younger progressive’s approval.
I know the terms have rhetorical connotations, but do you see how to some progressives folks like yourself literally fit the definition of conservative on things like Healthcare?
So when people say things like that, while they may not use the right words, they kinda have a point. There is clearly a generational divide though, while people of all ages show support for Sanders, nowhere is the race more one-sided than with folks under 30. The future of the party is in the vein of Bernie, not Hillary, that much has been made clear.
Me, P6 and others are all for the government using its powers to improve healthcare and the like. My perspective is that single payer is just an incredibly stupid idea in the US and we can improve healthcare through other government policy.
My assumption is that the lists were not maintained well prior to the primary elections (when state/county/local Boards of Elections actually get manpower/funding to do stuff), and they were only able to update them to include retirements/people moving out/party swaps until just now. Seems highly unlikely to me that a Board of Elections would be able to orchestrate this as a vote suppression conspiracy, given their makeup and the severe consequences if anyone would be able to discover it. I, quite frankly, don't see how they'd be able to organize it and not have someone leak it or blow the whistle on it.
An investigation is welcomed, but I would hold off on the rabid calls of voter fraud or suppression until after it's conducted. Seems far more likely to just be poor list maintenance and really shoddy timing.
To be clear, I don’t think single payer is a bad idea for the US. I just not confident it would survive a supreme court challenge with the current court and that we could get the states to comply. The ACA has been a huge struggle and we need to get all 50 states on board before anyone can consider a single payer system.
Unlike a lot of progressives, I’m not willing to ignore the almost 50% of the country that lean more to the right than me.
On April 18 2016 23:44 Mohdoo wrote: Predictions for today's immigration ruling? I think it's gonna go 4-4.
6-2 most likely, otherwise a 5-3.
Justice Kennedy has previously voted (and written the majority opinion) largely favor of the federal government in the case of illegal immigration: specifically the highly important Arizona v. United States, which should be noted was a 5-3 opinion, with Kagan not participating (Kagan would almost certainly have joined with the majority, however).
Roberts is also very much likely to take a dim view of the states' justification and evidence of injury (they're claiming injury from the drivers licenses they'd have to issue to undocumented immigrants), and his record shows that he's been very cautious about expanding the avenues through which an entity (individual, corporation, and state) can sue or litigate, and it's highly improbable that he will accept Texas' argument and evidence for injury (being highly flimsy at best, and overly political at worst).
There is no chance of a 4-4.
Final note, the opening arguments were made today. It won't be decided until much later.
The thing about the standing issue, is Texas almost certainly has standing under the most recent precedents in the Mass. v. EPA case.
A second issue I see with the standing point is that Texas could argue (and would be correct in my estimation) that if they changed their eligibility standards for drivers licenses and invented their own non-federal standard they would be sued. And probably sued successfully by an immigrant advocacy group that points to the Arizona case and says "Immigration is the domain of the Federal government." So IMO, standing is pinched between a rock and a hard place (if you are intellectually honest, which is always an issue for the Court).
On the substantive side, I say its a toss up and have no idea what will happen.
In Mass vs EPA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in the caseagainst the majority, with his primary argument being that the states did not provide an adequate basis for injury. While Mass vs EPA was a successful case on behalf of the state, I'm fairly confident Roberts is still a tossup due to the issue of standing.
Even if Roberts does not, Kennedy has generally set the precedent that he favors a much more expansive role of the federal government in the formulation of immigration policy, and is extremely likely to side with the 4 liberal justices on this one, based on Arizona v. United States.
The reason Kennedy is an unknown is because its not the state vs. Feds on this. Its statutory interpretation (Congress vs. Executive) and its just that the States were the parties with an argument for standing in the most favorable courts.
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.
Also, I'd like your opinion on the "rock and hard place" dilemma Kennedy is in because of Arizona. Isn't Texas re-defining "legal resident" or what not against the rules established by that case?
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.
Here is why I think Arizona complicates the standing issue (I don't know about the other issue, its a basic statutory interpretation issue, so, in other words, complete guesswork) because IMO it makes the fed's argument on lack of standing circular: 1) Texas: We have standing because the definition of ;"legal presence" affects our license programs. 2) SG: No you don't because adopting that standard is your own self inflicted wound. 3) Texas: Arizona says we can't make our own definition of "legally present". 4) SG: So make another standard. 5) Texas: No such standard would pass constitutional muster because of Arizona. We cannot legally inquire into the legitimacy of an immigrant's status, any rule that de facto excluded this class would be instantly challenged in court. 6) SG: Adopt a different standard. 7) Texas: What standard?
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.
Imo you are understanting how much of a loss that is for Obama. The granting of benefits and starting a snowball effect towards amnesty/legitimate legal status is clearly a goal here. Its easy to see this because because if he were to have conceded that no issue would have made it to SCOTUS aside from the "take care clause" argument, which is probably a loser so long as Roberts is on the court.
In many ways, because of Arizona, the standing question is subsumed into the substantive question: Whether this has actually changed the legal status of DAPA beneficiaries, or if its a legitimate use of discretion and resource optimization. Because, if the Federal government has sole authority over immigration (which Arizona is based off of) and states cannot treat persons differently (such as providing different rights and obligations) that the federal government treats as equals (in the immigration sense) then Texas (or any state) is required to follow their determination. Thus, if one is consistent, Arizona confers standing to states whenever immigration policy is changed so they can ensure that it is interpreted exactly according to Congress's intent, because mistakes by the executive branch will always affect them.
Which is one reason Arizona was likely decided incorrectly.
First, I do not believe DAPA is intended to be a gateway towards amnesty/legalization by itself. The goal of DACA and DAPA is to put a moratorium upon deportations until Congress either gets its shit together and/or is voted out of the office. The use of either as an explicit gateway towards citizenship would almost certainly be considered an infringement upon Congressional power, so the goal of these programs from my perspective is a stop-gap until a new administration and a Democratic Congressional majority can push through comprehensive immigration reform.
That being said, given the administration's representatives stated early on the first day that the term could be crossed out if the justices prefer, indicates for me that the Obama administration does not put much stock in the term to be either legally binding or part of a pathway to citizenship.
For myself, I'm expecting the Court in this case to focus mostly on the issue of state standing, and establishing the limits and framework for future cases. DAPA will either survive in its entirety, or the term "legally present" is removed and it's slightly truncated without major effects on the program.
That is an interesting POV. I guess the core of the question is actually whether DAPA is basically a moratorium on deportations or if it does change legal status. That they are willing to concede that point makes me think that you might be correct, or its that the administration didn't see (or want to see) the difference.
And to be clear, I don't think it was intended to be a legally binding pathway, IMO it was intended to get these immigrants drivers licenses, involved in certain other government things (like taxes), etc such that the next time there is an immigration fight they can trot out some stats like "85% of so called 'undocumented workers' have a drivers license and paid payroll taxes." Because there is nothing they like more than talking about how virtuous it is to pay taxes.
On April 20 2016 00:35 Velr wrote: Real question: "do people see the Clintons as progressive?"
All I see from them, as a person that cringes at half of plansix post, is common sense progressism (is that a word?), like equal rights for LG.. people and stuff like this.
Progressive is sort of a vague term. I am very progressive when it comes to social issues. I am extremely pragmatic when it comes to sweeping policy changes in healthcare. This is because a pretty sour about the ACA and how much of a fight that was with the super left members of the democratic party, which is should have been easy with a super majority.
And its fine if you don’t like my views, I roll my eyes at a lot of the gate keeping by a “progressives” that really just want to call everyone who doesn’t agree with them Republicans. And as I am older than most of the people in this thread, I have been a progressive for a lot longer and I’m really not looking for younger progressive’s approval.
I know the terms have rhetorical connotations, but do you see how to some progressives folks like yourself literally fit the definition of conservative on things like Healthcare?
So when people say things like that, while they may not use the right words, they kinda have a point. There is clearly a generational divide though, while people of all ages show support for Sanders, nowhere is the race more one-sided than with folks under 30. The future of the party is in the vein of Bernie, not Hillary, that much has been made clear.
Not necessarily. I'm not quite sure who said it (other than my father), and I am probably not using the precise quote, but:
"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"
And while I disagree up to a point, my days of voting for the SP or PvdA (the leftist parties) in Holland are definitely over (on the other hand, I am certainly not voting for the VVD or *shudder* PVV either... more likely something moderate and centrist)
So while young people are voting Sanders, that doesn't mean they will still support Sanders-esque ideas when they age.
On April 20 2016 00:35 Velr wrote: Real question: "do people see the Clintons as progressive?"
All I see from them, as a person that cringes at half of plansix post, is common sense progressism (is that a word?), like equal rights for LG.. people and stuff like this.
Progressive is sort of a vague term. I am very progressive when it comes to social issues. I am extremely pragmatic when it comes to sweeping policy changes in healthcare. This is because a pretty sour about the ACA and how much of a fight that was with the super left members of the democratic party, which is should have been easy with a super majority.
And its fine if you don’t like my views, I roll my eyes at a lot of the gate keeping by a “progressives” that really just want to call everyone who doesn’t agree with them Republicans. And as I am older than most of the people in this thread, I have been a progressive for a lot longer and I’m really not looking for younger progressive’s approval.
I know the terms have rhetorical connotations, but do you see how to some progressives folks like yourself literally fit the definition of conservative on things like Healthcare?
So when people say things like that, while they may not use the right words, they kinda have a point. There is clearly a generational divide though, while people of all ages show support for Sanders, nowhere is the race more one-sided than with folks under 30. The future of the party is in the vein of Bernie, not Hillary, that much has been made clear.
Not necessarily. I'm not quite sure who said it (other than my father), and I am probably not using the precise quote, but:
"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"
And while I disagree up to a point, my days of voting for the SP or PvdA (the leftist parties) in Holland are definitely over (on the other hand, I am certainly not voting for the VVD or *shudder* PVV either... more likely something moderate and centrist)
So while young people are voting Sanders, that doesn't mean they will still support Sanders-esque ideas when they age.
I think this doesn't properly account for the societal factors that made baby boomers the way they are politically.
In that regard, I think religious fundamentalism will be on the hit list of my generation. I think people in my generation will be as tolerant of religious extremism as baby boomers are of socialism.
On April 20 2016 00:35 Velr wrote: Real question: "do people see the Clintons as progressive?"
All I see from them, as a person that cringes at half of plansix post, is common sense progressism (is that a word?), like equal rights for LG.. people and stuff like this.
Progressive is sort of a vague term. I am very progressive when it comes to social issues. I am extremely pragmatic when it comes to sweeping policy changes in healthcare. This is because a pretty sour about the ACA and how much of a fight that was with the super left members of the democratic party, which is should have been easy with a super majority.
And its fine if you don’t like my views, I roll my eyes at a lot of the gate keeping by a “progressives” that really just want to call everyone who doesn’t agree with them Republicans. And as I am older than most of the people in this thread, I have been a progressive for a lot longer and I’m really not looking for younger progressive’s approval.
I know the terms have rhetorical connotations, but do you see how to some progressives folks like yourself literally fit the definition of conservative on things like Healthcare?
So when people say things like that, while they may not use the right words, they kinda have a point. There is clearly a generational divide though, while people of all ages show support for Sanders, nowhere is the race more one-sided than with folks under 30. The future of the party is in the vein of Bernie, not Hillary, that much has been made clear.
Not necessarily. I'm not quite sure who said it (other than my father), and I am probably not using the precise quote, but:
"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"
And while I disagree up to a point, my days of voting for the SP or PvdA (the leftist parties) in Holland are definitely over (on the other hand, I am certainly not voting for the VVD or *shudder* PVV either... more likely something moderate and centrist)
So while young people are voting Sanders, that doesn't mean they will still support Sanders-esque ideas when they age.
I think this doesn't properly account for the societal factors that made baby boomers the way they are politically.
In that regard, I think religious fundamentalism will be on the hit list of my generation. I think people in my generation will be as tolerant of religious extremism as baby boomers are of socialism.
God has never performed a single scientifically reproducible act. There has never been an act of magic, miracle or mysticism that we could reproduce on camera. But Faith can fly planes into buildings.
On April 20 2016 00:35 Velr wrote: Real question: "do people see the Clintons as progressive?"
All I see from them, as a person that cringes at half of plansix post, is common sense progressism (is that a word?), like equal rights for LG.. people and stuff like this.
Progressive is sort of a vague term. I am very progressive when it comes to social issues. I am extremely pragmatic when it comes to sweeping policy changes in healthcare. This is because a pretty sour about the ACA and how much of a fight that was with the super left members of the democratic party, which is should have been easy with a super majority.
And its fine if you don’t like my views, I roll my eyes at a lot of the gate keeping by a “progressives” that really just want to call everyone who doesn’t agree with them Republicans. And as I am older than most of the people in this thread, I have been a progressive for a lot longer and I’m really not looking for younger progressive’s approval.
I know the terms have rhetorical connotations, but do you see how to some progressives folks like yourself literally fit the definition of conservative on things like Healthcare?
So when people say things like that, while they may not use the right words, they kinda have a point. There is clearly a generational divide though, while people of all ages show support for Sanders, nowhere is the race more one-sided than with folks under 30. The future of the party is in the vein of Bernie, not Hillary, that much has been made clear.
Not necessarily. I'm not quite sure who said it (other than my father), and I am probably not using the precise quote, but:
"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"
And while I disagree up to a point, my days of voting for the SP or PvdA (the leftist parties) in Holland are definitely over (on the other hand, I am certainly not voting for the VVD or *shudder* PVV either... more likely something moderate and centrist)
So while young people are voting Sanders, that doesn't mean they will still support Sanders-esque ideas when they age.
I think this doesn't properly account for the societal factors that made baby boomers the way they are politically.
In that regard, I think religious fundamentalism will be on the hit list of my generation. I think people in my generation will be as tolerant of religious extremism as baby boomers are of socialism.
God has never performed a single scientifically reproducible act. There has never been an act of magic, miracle or mysticism that we could reproduce on camera. But Faith can fly planes into buildings.
On April 20 2016 00:35 Velr wrote: Real question: "do people see the Clintons as progressive?"
All I see from them, as a person that cringes at half of plansix post, is common sense progressism (is that a word?), like equal rights for LG.. people and stuff like this.
Progressive is sort of a vague term. I am very progressive when it comes to social issues. I am extremely pragmatic when it comes to sweeping policy changes in healthcare. This is because a pretty sour about the ACA and how much of a fight that was with the super left members of the democratic party, which is should have been easy with a super majority.
And its fine if you don’t like my views, I roll my eyes at a lot of the gate keeping by a “progressives” that really just want to call everyone who doesn’t agree with them Republicans. And as I am older than most of the people in this thread, I have been a progressive for a lot longer and I’m really not looking for younger progressive’s approval.
I know the terms have rhetorical connotations, but do you see how to some progressives folks like yourself literally fit the definition of conservative on things like Healthcare?
So when people say things like that, while they may not use the right words, they kinda have a point. There is clearly a generational divide though, while people of all ages show support for Sanders, nowhere is the race more one-sided than with folks under 30. The future of the party is in the vein of Bernie, not Hillary, that much has been made clear.
Not necessarily. I'm not quite sure who said it (other than my father), and I am probably not using the precise quote, but:
"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"
And while I disagree up to a point, my days of voting for the SP or PvdA (the leftist parties) in Holland are definitely over (on the other hand, I am certainly not voting for the VVD or *shudder* PVV either... more likely something moderate and centrist)
So while young people are voting Sanders, that doesn't mean they will still support Sanders-esque ideas when they age.
I think this doesn't properly account for the societal factors that made baby boomers the way they are politically.
In that regard, I think religious fundamentalism will be on the hit list of my generation. I think people in my generation will be as tolerant of religious extremism as baby boomers are of socialism.
God has never performed a single scientifically reproducible act. There has never been an act of magic, miracle or mysticism that we could reproduce on camera. But Faith can fly planes into buildings.
One would imagine that someone would have thought of using after effects to cover the noise of the person holding him up then putting him down as said person walked off camera before it pointed back up.
On April 20 2016 00:35 Velr wrote: Real question: "do people see the Clintons as progressive?"
All I see from them, as a person that cringes at half of plansix post, is common sense progressism (is that a word?), like equal rights for LG.. people and stuff like this.
Progressive is sort of a vague term. I am very progressive when it comes to social issues. I am extremely pragmatic when it comes to sweeping policy changes in healthcare. This is because a pretty sour about the ACA and how much of a fight that was with the super left members of the democratic party, which is should have been easy with a super majority.
And its fine if you don’t like my views, I roll my eyes at a lot of the gate keeping by a “progressives” that really just want to call everyone who doesn’t agree with them Republicans. And as I am older than most of the people in this thread, I have been a progressive for a lot longer and I’m really not looking for younger progressive’s approval.
I know the terms have rhetorical connotations, but do you see how to some progressives folks like yourself literally fit the definition of conservative on things like Healthcare?
So when people say things like that, while they may not use the right words, they kinda have a point. There is clearly a generational divide though, while people of all ages show support for Sanders, nowhere is the race more one-sided than with folks under 30. The future of the party is in the vein of Bernie, not Hillary, that much has been made clear.
Not necessarily. I'm not quite sure who said it (other than my father), and I am probably not using the precise quote, but:
"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"
And while I disagree up to a point, my days of voting for the SP or PvdA (the leftist parties) in Holland are definitely over (on the other hand, I am certainly not voting for the VVD or *shudder* PVV either... more likely something moderate and centrist)
So while young people are voting Sanders, that doesn't mean they will still support Sanders-esque ideas when they age.
I mean there's no real societal reason to go left in Holland. You are a pretty balanced nation (if anything, you're probably slightly too far left from what I've heard but I don't know a whole lot about it). So yeah I don't even know if I'd be a leftist in Holland. In America, it's a pretty different story, so I don't know that your brain would tell you to turn right when you grow up. Add to it the popularity of left leaning shows online which are not going away anytime soon, and I'd be surprised if we didn't see a pretty large shift to the left in America's future (surprised and pretty disappointed to be honest).
it's not a simple scale as though adding 50% of bernie would get you to the same place as hillary.
market phobic leftists and market accepting liberals may both be left on a simple political scale but they are vastly different in thought. for europe the former evolved into the latter after discovering socialism doesn't work. bernie has yet to learn anything since the 60's.
On April 20 2016 03:04 oneofthem wrote: it's not a simple scale as though adding 50% of bernie would get you to the same place as hillary.
market phobic leftists and market accepting liberals may both be left on a simple political scale but they are vastly different in thought. for europe the former evolved into the latter after discovering socialism doesn't work. bernie has yet to learn anything since the 60's.
Still a decade more reasonable than you since you're emblematic of the red scare of the 50s. Maybe you could like pick up a book on how different styles of government and different markets have different results. It's almost as if socialism and capitalism are both very useful approaches to governance in different situations. I hope you don't have insurance, because that right there is spooky scary collectivism which is the same as socialism which is the same as bein a dirty fuckin commie amen!
EPT
.
