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.
On June 25 2016 11:04 zlefin wrote: danglars ->I wouldn't call the current age post-constitutional. No moreso than the era of the warren court, or any other era.
I maintain we should have a 10th member on the supreme court, who only votes in case of ties (due to other members' death or recusal); then we could at least avoid 4-4 rulings, and the chaos they cause.
I do agree that it seems unlikely we could get the different sides of the court to agree more, or find compromise rulings that would let them avoid these 5-4 rulings so much. We need to elect more unpredictable moderates, so things shift around more!
The precedent was best shown in the Wilson era (can't have those organs against each other!) and FDR's threats to stack the court. Now it's recess appointments, employer mandates, statute rewriting by the executive in Obamacare implementation dates (GWB & TARP in like fashion), immigration law rewriting by selective enforcement, and others. It isn't a very productive discussion topic in this forum's environment and concerns. Just know how the other side feels.
10th member sounds pretty stupid, just let the court bounce back 4-4 decisions every once in a while when the Senate does not consent to the President's appointments. It's no more chaos than the usual partisan rule of the day. In like manner of moderates, you have to understand the razor sharp distinctions one decision on either side makes. You could have Obamacare gone with a swing justice, and marriage preserved with another. An abortion could be a federal crime or a procedure depending on timeframe. The court doesn't typically hear cases with broad room for compromise "middle road" solutions.
the problem wtih 4-4 decisions is that it lets the lower court ruling stand but does not establish binding precedent. One of the main reasons the supremes take up a case is if lower courts rulings differ. This means you have a situation wherein, due to different appellate circuit courts having different rulings (and those rulings only being binding within the area covered by that circuit), something can be constitutional in one part of the country, and unconstitutional in another. To me that's very problematic; constitutionality should be uniform throughout the country. I know it's survivable, but it's a situation i'd strongly like to avoid if possible.
and re: the other guy 26% is too high imho. Not sure there's any way to avoid it, but I'd really like it if there was. socially contested issues decided 5-4 tends ot hurt opinions of the supreme court, and means a lot of potential flux when new justices come in.
The attack on voting rights unleashed by Republican lawmakers over the past three years has made casting a ballot in parts of the deep south as fraught as it was in 1965 before the Voting Rights Act banned racial discrimination in elections, electoral monitors say.
Marion Warren, the registrar of voters for the small town of Sparta, Georgia, said that officials in local Hancock County have been so ruthless in impeding voting by the black community that the clock has been set back 50 years. “It’s harder for a minority to vote now than it was in the state of Georgia in 1965 – it’s causing voter apathy all across the county and that’s the best form of voter suppression you can find,” he said.
Warren was making his bleak assessment on the third anniversary of Shelby County v Holder, the controversial ruling by the US supreme court that punched a gaping hole in the Voting Rights Act that for half a century had assured minority groups of untrammeled access to the polls. Decided precisely three years ago, on 25 June 2013, the ruling put an end to safeguards that had obliged the worst offenders – mainly states or parts of states in the deep south – to apply for federal approval before they tampered with any aspect of their voting procedures.
The minute the court’s opinion was unveiled, an unseemly scramble began by Republican-controlled state assemblies to erect new barriers to voting that disproportionately affected African American, Latino, Native American, older and poor voters. Texas rushed through its voter ID law within hours of the supreme court announcement. North Carolina passed its monster voter suppression law, HB589, less than a month after Shelby.
The upcoming presidential election will be the first big test of the new post-Shelby, and thus post-Voting Rights Act, world. The prospects are ominous.
The Brennan Center for Justice has calculated that come November some 17 states will have new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential race. Of those, only seven had been covered by the federal “pre-clearance” rules, suggesting that Shelby has had a wide knock-on effect beyond states immediately impacted.
The White House has restated its position that Britain would be at the back of the queue when it comes to making trade deals with the US, in the wake of the Brexit vote.
In remarks on Friday, Barack Obama had offered reassurance that the UK would remain an “indispensable” ally and that “the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is enduring”.
Within hours, however, the cold reality of Britain’s new status, and its impact on relations with Washington, because clear. When the president came to Britain in April to help make the case for the remain camp, he warned that, if the UK left the EU, it would have to go to the back of the queue for a deal like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being negotiated between Washington and Brussels.
The White House made clear on Friday that the threat he made then still stuck. “Obviously, the president stands by what he said and I don’t have an update of our position,” spokesman Eric Schulz told reporters.
More like supporting the larger, more important trading partner. Its pure economics. The UK has fucked itself and a lot of its industries are going to be hurt because of it. People are already trying to figure out how many of the TV productions will need to be cut because of the changes. HBO said they would finish shooting Games of Thrones there after the vote, but it is going to cost a ton more.
On June 25 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote: More like supporting the larger, more important trading partner. Its pure economics. The UK has fucked itself and a lot of its industries are going to be hurt because of it. People are already trying to figure out how many of the TV productions will need to be cut because of the changes. HBO said they would finish shooting Games of Thrones there after the vote, but it is going to cost a ton more.
Next season of GoT is the last? They will be done shooting that before England leaves the EU.
On June 25 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote: More like supporting the larger, more important trading partner. Its pure economics. The UK has fucked itself and a lot of its industries are going to be hurt because of it. People are already trying to figure out how many of the TV productions will need to be cut because of the changes. HBO said they would finish shooting Games of Thrones there after the vote, but it is going to cost a ton more.
Next season of GoT is the last? They will be done shooting that before England leaves the EU.
Two seasons I think, but shorter runs. They might shoot them both at once. But I know that there was a lot of talk about the show leaving if the vote passed.
On June 25 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote: More like supporting the larger, more important trading partner. Its pure economics. The UK has fucked itself and a lot of its industries are going to be hurt because of it. People are already trying to figure out how many of the TV productions will need to be cut because of the changes. HBO said they would finish shooting Games of Thrones there after the vote, but it is going to cost a ton more.
You do realize trade agreements with the UK and Europe are not exclusive? The only reason to avoid the UK is to economically punish them, even if it hurts the US itself, because of political petiness. But that is how the left works anyway.
On June 25 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote: More like supporting the larger, more important trading partner. Its pure economics. The UK has fucked itself and a lot of its industries are going to be hurt because of it. People are already trying to figure out how many of the TV productions will need to be cut because of the changes. HBO said they would finish shooting Games of Thrones there after the vote, but it is going to cost a ton more.
You do realize trade agreements with the UK and Europe are not exclusive? The only reason to avoid the UK is to economically punish them, even if it hurts the US itself, because of political petiness. But that is how the left works anyway.
They are not excluding the UK at all.
Obama said that the UK will have to re-negotiate (as everyone knew) and they will have to wait in line just like everyone else. Negotiating trade agreements is a lot of work, countries tend to not negotiate a lot of them at the same time and many countries want to trade with the US.
On June 25 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote: More like supporting the larger, more important trading partner. Its pure economics. The UK has fucked itself and a lot of its industries are going to be hurt because of it. People are already trying to figure out how many of the TV productions will need to be cut because of the changes. HBO said they would finish shooting Games of Thrones there after the vote, but it is going to cost a ton more.
You do realize trade agreements with the UK and Europe are not exclusive? The only reason to avoid the UK is to economically punish them, even if it hurts the US itself, because of political petiness. But that is how the left works anyway.
What are you talking about ? There are plenty of reasons to avoid the UK as a business now. Just the simple fact that goods landing in the UK will not flow freely into the Eurozone is enough to clear out the shipyards.
I already started paperwork and procedurse for customs brokerage solutions that alot of the North American divisons or North American companies who want to alter them because they are already planning to move their NRI's to moving to Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Germany. And these are just the first movers who dont care if they stay in the UK or not and the cost of moving isnt much of an issue. The bigger players are going to see how negotiations pan out but we are on standby to switch the systems and file their paperwork aswell..
The UK was operating on the strength of its financial sector, its geolocation and its tertiary production. Hence you had a shitty working class. That working class will remain shitty and now the tertiary services are going to get boned.
On June 25 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote: More like supporting the larger, more important trading partner. Its pure economics. The UK has fucked itself and a lot of its industries are going to be hurt because of it. People are already trying to figure out how many of the TV productions will need to be cut because of the changes. HBO said they would finish shooting Games of Thrones there after the vote, but it is going to cost a ton more.
You do realize trade agreements with the UK and Europe are not exclusive? The only reason to avoid the UK is to economically punish them, even if it hurts the US itself, because of political petiness. But that is how the left works anyway.
What are you talking about ? There are plenty of reasons to avoid the UK as a business now. Just the simple fact that goods landing in the UK will not flow freely into the Eurozone is enough to clear out the shipyards.
I already started paperwork and procedurse for customs brokerage solutions that alot of the North American divisons or North American companies who want to alter them because they are already planning to move their NRI's to moving to Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Germany. And these are just the first movers who dont care if they stay in the UK or not and the cost of moving isnt much of an issue. The bigger players are going to see how negotiations pan out but we are on standby to switch the systems and file their paperwork aswell..
The UK was operating on the strength of its financial sector, its geolocation and its tertiary production. Hence you had a shitty working class. That working class will remain shitty and now the tertiary services are going to get boned.
Yep, this makes the sounds coming from my own country (Netherlands) so stupid. We are a major gateway country into the EU. The moment we leave Rotterdam, the biggest goods harbor in the EU, is dead because goods can no longer freely move.
On June 25 2016 22:21 zlefin wrote: and re: the other guy 26% is too high imho. Not sure there's any way to avoid it, but I'd really like it if there was. socially contested issues decided 5-4 tends ot hurt opinions of the supreme court, and means a lot of potential flux when new justices come in.
The percentage of 5-4 (or 4-4) decisions doesn't say much. There's a massive selection bias because the Supreme Court generally takes the most contentious cases, i.e., the kinds of cases about which different judges will disagree. You'd expect the Court to split in many cases under those circumstances.
You'd think with multiple positions to fill, congress would somehow work with the president to pass adding an even number of new justices from each side. You know.. compromise, so it doesn't end up like 7-2 with one party in a supermajority.
On June 26 2016 03:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: You'd think with multiple positions to fill, congress would somehow work with the president to pass adding an even number of new justices from each side. You know.. compromise, so it doesn't end up like 7-2 with one party in a supermajority.
I'd be fine with that. There's quite a few old justices at the amount; some who might be willing/interested to retire, so that there's 2 openings.
Longtime conservative columnist George Will is wiping his hands clean of the Republican Party.
“This is not my party,” Will told PJ Media on Saturday. The Washington Post writer said a Democratic presidency would be better than the alternative offered by Donald Trump — who once called Will a “major loser,” according to Politico.
“Make sure he loses,” Will said of the presumptive GOP nominee. “Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House.”
His voter registration in Maryland has now changed from Republican to “unaffiliated,” PJ Media reported. The final straw was House Speaker Paul Ryan‘s (R-Wis) endorsement of Trump, he said.
In the meantime, Trump continues to fumble over himself. Just this week, he fired his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski before setting off to Scotland to promote his golf resorts.
“He had one good day because he didn’t vomit all over himself and gave a decent speech,” GOP consultant Matt Mackowiak said of Trump.
"Oh noes! A nominee who wants the government to do what it's supposed to do instead of wasting time cramming illegal healthcare bills down our throats or obsessing over inanimate objects. I better bail!"
On June 26 2016 06:11 Ravianna26 wrote: "Oh noes! A nominee who wants the government to do what it's supposed to do instead of wasting time cramming illegal healthcare bills down our throats or obsessing over inanimate objects. I better bail!"
On June 26 2016 06:11 Ravianna26 wrote: "Oh noes! A nominee who wants the government to do what it's supposed to do instead of wasting time cramming illegal healthcare bills down our throats or obsessing over inanimate objects. I better bail!"
WASHINGTON — Following a disastrous month and a half, Donald Trump finally gave Republicans a respite, delivering a scripted speech attacking Hillary Clinton without veering off on dangerous tangents.
That was the good news for his party.
Now the bad news: It was pretty much the sole high point in a week that saw the presumptive nominee fire his campaign manager, file an alarmingly weak campaign finance report and then spend precious days flying across the Atlantic to promote his Scottish golf resorts — a move that mystified party leaders and donors alike.
Even worse, seven weeks after watching his remaining GOP rivals drop out of the race, Trump is still fighting a rearguard action against Republican delegates working to deny him the nomination at next month’s convention in Cleveland.
“He’s spending campaign money that should be used against Hillary Clinton to smack down dissent,” said Colorado delegate Kendal Unruh, leader of the “Free the Delegates” movement. “That doesn’t bode well.”
Unruh said her group is working with a super PAC that is airing radio ads in Iowa and a secret-money political group running cable TV ads nationally to publicize its cause. She has already circulated a letter to her 111 fellow members of the Convention Rules Committee urging them to support her proposed “conscience clause” to let delegates out of their obligation to vote for Trump.
Unruh told participants on a conference call Sunday that she believes that if they can persuade a majority of the rules committee to approve her proposal, a majority of the full convention would likely follow suit — and Trump would lose the nomination.
“Our strength comes from the delegates themselves,” Unruh said. “We know we’re saving the party.”
Trump, though, still has the support of Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus and his staff, who downplay the delegate revolt. They highlight Trump’s Wednesday speech, which was cheered by many Republicans because Trump largely stuck to his prepared remarks by reading off a Teleprompter. He accused Clinton of a variety of misdeeds but did not, for example, ad lib attacks on the federal judge handling a class action fraud lawsuit against Trump University, his series of real estate seminars.
One source close to the Trump campaign said the departure of volatile campaign manager Corey Lewandowski would prove to be a turning point. Lewandowski had jealously guarded his access to Trump and had worked to undermine top strategist Paul Manafort, who has been trying to fashion Trump into a more conventional candidate since he joined the campaign in March.
On June 25 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote: More like supporting the larger, more important trading partner. Its pure economics. The UK has fucked itself and a lot of its industries are going to be hurt because of it. People are already trying to figure out how many of the TV productions will need to be cut because of the changes. HBO said they would finish shooting Games of Thrones there after the vote, but it is going to cost a ton more.
Not sure how that works outs. With their currency plummeting it should cost much less to do work there.
EPT
