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.
Nope. I consider that the best possible outcome. Set no constitutional precedent. Allow legislators, both state and federal, to have their say (particularly when 4 justices agree that the constitution has nothing to say on the issue and it should be "reserved to the states or the people." It's similar to a while back when another conservative made the point that compromise "solutions" for the sake of having a majority compromise can be much worse than no decision. If it was so clearly a constitutional matter for the Supreme Court, why couldn't 5 justices agree in the first place?
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.
There is no possibility of us leaving before the show ends filming in my opinion. They are simply trying to make something out of Game of Throne's name recognition. It's the lowest form of political commentary. You might as well write an article about how it'll effect the Kardashians.
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.
There is no possibility of us leaving before the show ends filming in my opinion. They are simply trying to make something out of Game of Throne's name recognition. It's the lowest form of political commentary. You might as well write an article about how it'll effect the Kardashians.
The article was not about Game of Thrones specifically leaving, it was that they might have to consider leaving or that it might not make economic sense for them to stay there once the process starts. Its an international production and the show doesn't want to deal with the potential of shifting rules or delays created by changes is policy. That buisness decisions are based on stability and TV/Movie production can't deal with delays.
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.
There is no possibility of us leaving before the show ends filming in my opinion. They are simply trying to make something out of Game of Throne's name recognition. It's the lowest form of political commentary. You might as well write an article about how it'll effect the Kardashians.
The article was not about Game of Thrones specifically leaving, it was that they might have to consider leaving or that it might not make economic sense for them to stay there once the process starts. Its an international production and the show doesn't want to deal with the potential of shifting rules or delays created by changes is policy. That buisness decisions are based on stability.
Wrong thread for this but do not forget that article 50 will probably not be invoked this year and after it is there is a 2 year negotiation period. Game of Thrones will be done before England leaves. As Kwark said, that comment was nothing but cheap political commentary
New Mexico has filed a lawsuit against Colorado in the nation’s highest court alleging the state should be held responsible for the Gold King Mine spill and its handling of the contaminants that have leached from surrounding mines for decades.
The lawsuit, announced Thursday and filed on behalf of New Mexico’s governor, environmental secretary and attorney general, alleges Colorado “is directly responsible” for the conditions that led to the disaster.
New Mexico officials say their 135-page bill of complaint in the lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court and that the action was taken after discussions and negotiations with Colorado officials failed.
“The Gold King Mine release is the result of two decades of disastrous environmental decision-making by Colorado, for which New Mexico and its citizens are now paying the price,” Attorney General Hector Balderas said in a statement Thursday.
For months, New Mexico has cried foul against Colorado and the Environmental Protection Agency, which caused the Gold King disaster in August, calling for someone to be held responsible. The lawsuit represents the most serious legal action taken against Colorado in the wake of the massive 3 million-gallon spill.
Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman declined an interview with The Denver Post on Thursday but in a statement said the lawsuit was “unfortunate” considering the spill was the EPA’s fault.
“It’s unclear to me how suing Colorado furthers the states’ mutual goal of holding the EPA to its promise to ‘take full responsibility’ for turning our rivers yellow,” Coffman wrote. “An interstate lawsuit just gives the EPA another excuse to delay and does nothing for the environment or the citizens that have been impacted. It could take years, even decades, to resolve this costly litigation.”
Gov. John Hickenlooper said he was “disappointed” by the lawsuit but that it wouldn’t halt Colorado’s work to remediate leaching, abandoned mines throughout the state.
On June 25 2016 00:40 Mohdoo wrote: I don't think Drumpf will benefit at all from this. It doesn't fit into his narratives and people don't actually understand what's going on. Republicans celebrate the idea of independence, but it's not like this actually hurts Clinton in some way.
My Drumpf supporting friends are congratulating Britain on their democratic process and hope that we can do the same in November to block Islamic immigrants from entering our country in the future.
Yeah, I guess that's my point, really. Drumpf supporters are happy about it, but its not a simple matter of populism. The Bernie crowd is very pro-EU and believes strongly in the unity the EU has been able to build. Bernie types are about workers rights and the wages being kept safe from special interests, which often means protecting themselves from outsourcing of jobs. But this is totally different.
And if anything, this entire thing being framed as an economic disaster doesn't exactly do similar movements much good. I salute the UK's bravery for standing up against Merkel. They will persevere. But other governments are gonna look at the numbers, cringe, and do everything they can to prevent the same from happening to them.
Honestly the really scary thing is that the UK displayed itself to be a post factual democracy. Which is kinda the tendencies that Drumpf is riding soooo be worried.
You know I know that you are just repeating the "post-factual" thing from that viral FT comment, but anyone that emphasizes "facts" is missing both why so many voted for Brexit and why so many support Trump. Lamenting the deconstruction of the fact is to assert an objective position that is the form of disguise for a thoroughly subjective position: "I decide what the 'facts' are and whether they are relevant or not. I decide the epistemic grounds of debate. And in doing so have constructed an ethical system that cannot broach disgreement, because the 'facts' are on my side."
Brexit and Trump supporters are in many ways voting for propositions that they know will hurt their short-term neoclassically-defined economic interests in return for some semblance of psychosocial control over their lives. The politicization, and hence, weaponization of facts in ideological wars has produced a somewhat justified reaction against the "facticity" of facts handed down from on high (i.e. the social elites).
It is about the ability to control the presuppositions or coordinates that define individuals' and communities' symbolic orders. People are sick and tired of being completely powerless to find satisfying jobs, as work, healthcare, welfare, and material security in general is increasingly difficult to control for the majority of the population. The "growth" of the last 5 years is not being felt by the masses who are instead subjected to increasingly precarious employment and subsistence. That's why you have regions that ostensibly "benefit" most from remaining in the EU voting against. And people who think facts are apolitical or who decry the workingman's disdain for "facts" are blinded by a hegemonic ideology that effectively hides the politics at play, making it literally impossible to get a handle on the underlying struggle here.
Edit: this also applies to sandernistas and its one of the reasons that many people on this board, including one who will remain nameless, have been heaping endless scorn on the sandernistas while attributing their position to youthful idiocy, ignorance, or living in an "echo chamber". such people miss the point.
On June 25 2016 00:40 Mohdoo wrote: I don't think Drumpf will benefit at all from this. It doesn't fit into his narratives and people don't actually understand what's going on. Republicans celebrate the idea of independence, but it's not like this actually hurts Clinton in some way.
My Drumpf supporting friends are congratulating Britain on their democratic process and hope that we can do the same in November to block Islamic immigrants from entering our country in the future.
Yeah, I guess that's my point, really. Drumpf supporters are happy about it, but its not a simple matter of populism. The Bernie crowd is very pro-EU and believes strongly in the unity the EU has been able to build. Bernie types are about workers rights and the wages being kept safe from special interests, which often means protecting themselves from outsourcing of jobs. But this is totally different.
And if anything, this entire thing being framed as an economic disaster doesn't exactly do similar movements much good. I salute the UK's bravery for standing up against Merkel. They will persevere. But other governments are gonna look at the numbers, cringe, and do everything they can to prevent the same from happening to them.
Honestly the really scary thing is that the UK displayed itself to be a post factual democracy. Which is kinda the tendencies that Drumpf is riding soooo be worried.
You know I know that you are just repeating the "post-factual" thing from that viral FT comment, but anyone that emphasizes "facts" is missing both why so many voted for Brexit and why so many support Trump. Lamenting the deconstruction of the fact is to assert an objective position that is the form of disguise for a thoroughly subjective position: "I decide what the 'facts' are and whether they are relevant or not. I decide the epistemic grounds of debate. And in doing so have constructed an ethical system that cannot broach disgreement, because the 'facts' are on my side."
Brexit and Trump supporters are in many ways voting for propositions that they know will hurt their short-term neoclassically-defined economic interests in return for some semblance of psychosocial control over their lives. The politicization, and hence, weaponization of facts in ideological wars has produced a somewhat justified reaction against the "facticity" of facts handed down from on high (i.e. the social elites).
It is about the ability to control the presuppositions or coordinates that define individuals' and communities' symbolic orders. People are sick and tired of being completely powerless to find satisfying jobs, as work, healthcare, welfare, and material security in general is increasingly difficult to control for the majority of the population. The "growth" of the last 5 years is not being felt by the masses who are instead subjected to increasingly precarious employment and subsistence. That's why you have regions that ostensibly "benefit" most from remaining in the EU voting against. And people who think facts are apolitical or who decry the workingman's disdain for "facts" are blinded by a hegemonic ideology that effectively hides the politics at play, making it literally impossible to get a handle on the underlying struggle here.
I'm ninety-nine percent sure I have a radically different idea of what makes up the underlying struggle, but I sincerely agree on your main points. Objective 'facts are on our side' dialogue disguises a thoroughly subjective approach. The wave against establishment politics is, at its heart, a reaction against the facticity of facts, which I'd consider those handed down from entrenched political leaders and powerful special interests. Politics as usual will continue it's decline until policymakers grasp how powerless the governed feel. Elites hand down policy and preemptively declare all packages as the right policy. They treat their voters with scorn, leading to the first tea party wave in 2010 (against GOP establishment lawmakers), Brexit, 2014 midterms, and the Bernie wave (elites saying you shouldn't care about corruption and should embrace the status quo economy).
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.
Nope. I consider that the best possible outcome. Set no constitutional precedent. Allow legislators, both state and federal, to have their say (particularly when 4 justices agree that the constitution has nothing to say on the issue and it should be "reserved to the states or the people." It's similar to a while back when another conservative made the point that compromise "solutions" for the sake of having a majority compromise can be much worse than no decision. If it was so clearly a constitutional matter for the Supreme Court, why couldn't 5 justices agree in the first place?
so, you consider it a good outcome that the constitution does not have a single defined meaning, but that it's meaning varies based on where you live. that seems a very odd viewpoint to me. I doubt I can reconcile with such a viewpoint.
Utah Rep. Mia Love, a young and rising star in the Republican Party, will skip next month’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland, saying she doesn’t see benefits in attending.
“I don’t see any upsides to it,” Love said, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. “I don’t see how this benefits the state.”
The first-term congresswoman said that “not blindly following” the party’s presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, is her way of representing her congressional district well.
Love — who supported Florida Sen. Marco Rubio in the Republican primaries — has not indicated whether or not she would vote for Trump in November.
The Tribune also reported that Love will spend the week of the convention both campaigning in her district and participating in a congressional trip to Israel.
In addition to Love, former presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, among other former and current Republican officeholders, will not be attending next month's convention.
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.
Nope. I consider that the best possible outcome. Set no constitutional precedent. Allow legislators, both state and federal, to have their say (particularly when 4 justices agree that the constitution has nothing to say on the issue and it should be "reserved to the states or the people." It's similar to a while back when another conservative made the point that compromise "solutions" for the sake of having a majority compromise can be much worse than no decision. If it was so clearly a constitutional matter for the Supreme Court, why couldn't 5 justices agree in the first place?
so, you consider it a good outcome that the constitution does not have a single defined meaning, but that it's meaning varies based on where you live. that seems a very odd viewpoint to me. I doubt I can reconcile with such a viewpoint.
As crudely as you stated it, I say it's the best possible outcome considering the makeup of the court and the other options. Like Trump/Clinton I'm picking the least bad choice. I could hold out for Ginsburg & Co flipping to originalism so questions on separations of powers are 8-0, but that isn't realistic.
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.
That guy is just having a weird tantrum. He thinks Trump would have "no opposition" from Republicans, who is he kidding? Must not have been paying attention to Paul Ryan and other top GOP people saying for months that they have policy differences with Trump. And he claims to have a problem with Republican-appointed SCOTUS justices, but had nothing to say about Trump's already-released list of prospective appointments? He must love the party so much to give up the chance to vote in primaries in his home state of Maryland - at least until the publicity clears and he changes his affiliation back - just because he doesn't like the nominee for president this time. He'll probably go along voting for Republican senators, representatives, governors, etc., anyway. Maybe he just doesn't know you're not compelled to vote for the party you're registered with.
He summed up his ideology pretty well, which is that he just wants different branches of government to be controlled by different factions to make sure the government is impotent.
Assuming Republicans retained the majority in both the House and Senate in 2016, Will said “gridlock” in government is a good thing “nine times out of 10.”
“Gridlock is not an American problem. It’s an American achievement,” he said, explaining that there are some countries that “wish” their governments were gridlocked.
Will added that gridlock often “stops things” the federal government should not be doing.
I'm not suggesting this fellow vote against his own conscience in November, but changing his voter affiliation is a misapplication of his principles, and probably meaningless as he doesn't seem to be involved in the party at any substantive level, he's a journalist.
George Will has always had a screw loose. He rationalizes compromises to big government and has weird views on Stand your ground in florida (Zimmerman news cycle). But he really has only made overtures to conservatism, in many ways he hasn't changed from the past. He attacked Reagan and tried to rid the party of his supporters in '76 and '80.
Reagan is 63 and he looks it. His hair is so remarkably free of gray, but around the mouth and neck, he looks like an old man. He has never demonstrated substantial national appeal. His hardcore support today consists primarily of the Kamikaze Conservatives who thought the 1960 Goldwater campaign was jolly fun. And there is reason to doubt that Reagan is well suited to appeal to the electorate that just produced a Democratic landslide.
A Rockefeller Republican who's usually lost and clueless describes him to a tee.
On June 26 2016 12:24 Danglars wrote: George Will has always had a screw loose. He rationalizes compromises to big government and has weird views on Stand your ground in florida (Zimmerman news cycle). But he really has only made overtures to conservatism, in many ways he hasn't changed from the past. He attacked Reagan and tried to rid the party of his supporters in '76 and '80.
Reagan is 63 and he looks it. His hair is so remarkably free of gray, but around the mouth and neck, he looks like an old man. He has never demonstrated substantial national appeal. His hardcore support today consists primarily of the Kamikaze Conservatives who thought the 1960 Goldwater campaign was jolly fun. And there is reason to doubt that Reagan is well suited to appeal to the electorate that just produced a Democratic landslide.
A Rockefeller Republican who's usually lost and clueless describes him to a tee.
Great to know that someone who doesn't buy a party's platform wholesale has "a screw loose".
On June 25 2016 09:51 xDaunt wrote: Hillary won because:
1) The entire Democrat Party apparatus unified behind her early, and 2) No one serious stood up to challenge her during the primary.
Her primary campaign was meant to be a gigantic victory lap from the get-go. That Bernie did so well is a reflection of how feeble of a candidate she really is. She had every advantage imaginable during the primary, and still had trouble putting him away.
When a candidate wins the popular, pledged and super delegate vote, and primarily wins the states with a high voter turn out, who got a big lead early and was never even close to losing it--how exactly does that count as being weak?
"Oh no, watch out, Hilary is only winning across every single measurable metric"
On June 26 2016 12:24 Danglars wrote: George Will has always had a screw loose. He rationalizes compromises to big government and has weird views on Stand your ground in florida (Zimmerman news cycle). But he really has only made overtures to conservatism, in many ways he hasn't changed from the past. He attacked Reagan and tried to rid the party of his supporters in '76 and '80.
Reagan is 63 and he looks it. His hair is so remarkably free of gray, but around the mouth and neck, he looks like an old man. He has never demonstrated substantial national appeal. His hardcore support today consists primarily of the Kamikaze Conservatives who thought the 1960 Goldwater campaign was jolly fun. And there is reason to doubt that Reagan is well suited to appeal to the electorate that just produced a Democratic landslide.
A Rockefeller Republican who's usually lost and clueless describes him to a tee.
Great to know that someone who doesn't buy a party's platform wholesale has "a screw loose".
I detailed the reasons, you're welcome to read the links and party history instead of shooting from the hip.
On June 25 2016 09:51 xDaunt wrote: Hillary won because:
1) The entire Democrat Party apparatus unified behind her early, and 2) No one serious stood up to challenge her during the primary.
Her primary campaign was meant to be a gigantic victory lap from the get-go. That Bernie did so well is a reflection of how feeble of a candidate she really is. She had every advantage imaginable during the primary, and still had trouble putting him away.
When a candidate wins the popular, pledged and super delegate vote, and primarily wins the states with a high voter turn out, who got a big lead early and was never even close to losing it--how exactly does that count as being weak?
"Oh no, watch out, Hilary is only winning across every single measurable metric"
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.
Nope. I consider that the best possible outcome. Set no constitutional precedent. Allow legislators, both state and federal, to have their say (particularly when 4 justices agree that the constitution has nothing to say on the issue and it should be "reserved to the states or the people." It's similar to a while back when another conservative made the point that compromise "solutions" for the sake of having a majority compromise can be much worse than no decision. If it was so clearly a constitutional matter for the Supreme Court, why couldn't 5 justices agree in the first place?
Except the court can always decline to take a case. If the court takes a case and gives a 4-4 verdict that's a complete shit outcome.
On June 25 2016 00:40 Mohdoo wrote: I don't think Drumpf will benefit at all from this. It doesn't fit into his narratives and people don't actually understand what's going on. Republicans celebrate the idea of independence, but it's not like this actually hurts Clinton in some way.
My Drumpf supporting friends are congratulating Britain on their democratic process and hope that we can do the same in November to block Islamic immigrants from entering our country in the future.
Yeah, I guess that's my point, really. Drumpf supporters are happy about it, but its not a simple matter of populism. The Bernie crowd is very pro-EU and believes strongly in the unity the EU has been able to build. Bernie types are about workers rights and the wages being kept safe from special interests, which often means protecting themselves from outsourcing of jobs. But this is totally different.
And if anything, this entire thing being framed as an economic disaster doesn't exactly do similar movements much good. I salute the UK's bravery for standing up against Merkel. They will persevere. But other governments are gonna look at the numbers, cringe, and do everything they can to prevent the same from happening to them.
Honestly the really scary thing is that the UK displayed itself to be a post factual democracy. Which is kinda the tendencies that Drumpf is riding soooo be worried.
You know I know that you are just repeating the "post-factual" thing from that viral FT comment, but anyone that emphasizes "facts" is missing both why so many voted for Brexit and why so many support Trump. Lamenting the deconstruction of the fact is to assert an objective position that is the form of disguise for a thoroughly subjective position: "I decide what the 'facts' are and whether they are relevant or not. I decide the epistemic grounds of debate. And in doing so have constructed an ethical system that cannot broach disgreement, because the 'facts' are on my side."
Brexit and Trump supporters are in many ways voting for propositions that they know will hurt their short-term neoclassically-defined economic interests in return for some semblance of psychosocial control over their lives. The politicization, and hence, weaponization of facts in ideological wars has produced a somewhat justified reaction against the "facticity" of facts handed down from on high (i.e. the social elites).
It is about the ability to control the presuppositions or coordinates that define individuals' and communities' symbolic orders. People are sick and tired of being completely powerless to find satisfying jobs, as work, healthcare, welfare, and material security in general is increasingly difficult to control for the majority of the population. The "growth" of the last 5 years is not being felt by the masses who are instead subjected to increasingly precarious employment and subsistence. That's why you have regions that ostensibly "benefit" most from remaining in the EU voting against. And people who think facts are apolitical or who decry the workingman's disdain for "facts" are blinded by a hegemonic ideology that effectively hides the politics at play, making it literally impossible to get a handle on the underlying struggle here.
Edit: this also applies to sandernistas and its one of the reasons that many people on this board, including one who will remain nameless, have been heaping endless scorn on the sandernistas while attributing their position to youthful idiocy, ignorance, or living in an "echo chamber". such people miss the point.
I agree with your main thrust but I am not so sure the bolded part is true (see the reactions after Brexit on the Leave side).
EPT
