EPT
.US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6829
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
He might be more sympathetic to other arguments but the VWPIA "but Obama did it!" stuff wouldn't tickle his fancy. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 10 2017 10:35 biology]major wrote: They shouldn't do a 4-4 ruling and just come together and make a decision one way or another. They should rise above the political bickering in congress and just decide if this eo is constitutional or not. Court's too political. I expect 4-4 to keep the stay in place. On February 10 2017 10:16 farvacola wrote: Why didn't the Trump administration raise the "Obama holdovers" issues on appeal? Oh yeah, because claiming that you can't staff your office correctly and that therefore you should be able to unilaterally suspend already granted residency interests without review is a stupid thing to claim in court. Or anywhere for that matter. That's the reason the policy makes sense for issuing the executive order on national security in the first place. One of two issues is whether the order makes sense, versus what makes it constitutional. Now, Trump did well to borrow language from Obama's previous executive orders and use his country list. It embarrasses these 'Muslim ban' columnists and talking heads. Now, I'll give you your current visa holders and permanent legal residents. But suspending the refugee program and pausing immigration from the seven listed countries is constitutional under the plenary power doctrine and past immigration decisions, and any court that thinks it has constitutional say in this matter is delusional (but, activist judges kind of rule as they see fit, not bound by constitutional constraints). | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 10 2017 10:35 biology]major wrote: They shouldn't do a 4-4 ruling and just come together and make a decision one way or another. They should rise above the political bickering in congress and just decide if this eo is constitutional or not. they'll try to do that anyways. but sometimes you still have 4-4 rulings. whether something is constitutional or not is sometimes not clear cut. that said, I do imagine they'll try to come up with a ruling that's less split, and/or find a way to dodge the issue if they can't. but we're quite far away from getting to the point where the supremes would even rule on constitutionality. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 10 2017 10:45 Danglars wrote: Court's too political. I expect 4-4 to keep the stay in place. That's the reason the policy makes sense for issuing the executive order on national security in the first place. One of two issues is whether the order makes sense, versus what makes it constitutional. Now, Trump did well to borrow language from Obama's previous executive orders and use his country list. It embarrasses these 'Muslim ban' columnists and talking heads. Now, I'll give you your current visa holders and permanent legal residents. But suspending the refugee program and pausing immigration from the seven listed countries is constitutional under the plenary power doctrine and past immigration decisions, and any court that thinks it has constitutional say in this matter is delusional (but, activist judges kind of rule as they see fit, not bound by constitutional constraints). and I'm fairly sure if that's what he had done we wouldn't have this situation. But that's not what he issued. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
If so, lol | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 10 2017 10:54 Mohdoo wrote: So this will go to the 8 person court, right? The new dude won't be in by then? If so, lol if by "this" you mean the appeal of the temporary stay, then it'd be the 8 person court most likely. high chance they simply ignore the appeal. the supreme court doens't hear many cases, and it'd be quite normal for them to not listen to an appeal on a stay (i forget what it's called exactly, but they just decline to hear the appeal). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
 | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote: You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 10 2017 10:17 Logo wrote: Often it's not the school at all really? I believe in UC Berkley's case a Republican school group organized to bring Milo on campus. From the sound of it they didn't particularly seem interested in what he had to say so much as bringing him in because they knew he'd rile up the liberal students. My understanding is that this is the vast majority of Milo's speaking engagements. And for contrast, I have heard that UC Berkley is not opposed to stepping in and rejected speakers for their political views. But the political views upset the people who donate to the school. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On February 10 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote: The Hillary wing, if you prefer. Didn't mean to make it sound hostile. It's just pretty clear you 3 (and maybe some others not coming to mind, hence the more general "people like") are in a different part of the left than the strong Bernie supporters, or formor Hillary supporters who think Bernie would have been a better choice or is the direction the party should be moving. Given you haven't been as openly hostile to Bernie and his supporters as those two, I was just curious, if you had to choose (and it's looking like you will) between Joe Manchin Democrats and Bernie Sanders Democrats, which are you keeping in the party? I think I need to clarify a misconception here: supporting HRC instead of Sanders in the Democratic nomination does not mean one is necessarily less progressive than any given Sanders supporter. I suppose you didn't see my edit to my previous post, so I wrote: "I'd take Sanders over him [Manchin] any day of the week". I don't like Manchin at all, and he could very well be in the GOP given some of his positions. At the same time, I'd rather have Manchin than some of the Republicans that would be elected in his stead (like John Raese, that he defeated in 2012) in WV. On February 10 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote: That said, I'm also still curious on your take on the Perez comment (unless I missed that?) What are you curious about? He was saying there shouldn't even be a perception of favoritism in the next primary, and that there should be more transparency to ensure people don't get the wrong idea. He clarified his initial comments by saying that he wasn't endorsing the idea that the primary got rigged in favor of HRC -- the process was fair, even though the chair had a personal preference. Or did you think he suddenly went "oh shit I just spilled the beans on our secret dnc conspiracy, better deny it again!"? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is actually a great need for a voice on the left to introduce urgency into a variety of problems, but given the very crude ideological identity politics played by 'the progressive wing' you guys are not being effective at that role and just serve to drive down morale. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On February 10 2017 11:04 Mohdoo wrote: kwiz, he directly said "We heard loudly and clearly yesterday from Bernie supporters that the process was rigged, and it was." is there any ambiguity whatsoever? Apparently so, since he clarified his comments and said that the process was fair, that he was addressing the fact that there was a perception that it wasn't, and that the chair should be "transparent and objective" even if s/he doesn't actually do anything to tip the scales. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 10 2017 11:12 kwizach wrote: Apparently so, since he clarified his comments and said that the process was fair, that he was addressing the fact that there was a perception that it wasn't, and that the chair should be "transparent and objective" even if s/he doesn't actually do anything to tip the scales. You are so reasonable in so many ways that it blows my mind how tightly you have hung on to the idea that Bernie had a totally fair shot at the nomination. I didn't vote for him (was over by Oregon anyway), but this idea that he and Clinton were on a totally level playing field (even disregarding superdelegates) is insane. Him specifically saying there is an interpretation, then affirming that interpretation are 2 distinct thoughts. Are you saying he meant to say "Bernie people thought this. And they sure did think that"? He was a combative, populist, unrealistic and somewhat uninformed candidate. He openly said he would change things in a way that would actually even be bad for the democratic party establishment. It shouldn't be a surprise they worked against him, but dude, they totally did. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote: We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote: What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery? Do we really need laws to dictate that? Are we going to spell out each specific case when a late term abortion is allowed? Is that going to prevent late term abortions or are women going to just get them illegally? Rather than talk about rights of an unborn child, talk about the consequences of restricting abortion late term or at all. The reality is you likely can't prevent abortions by making them illegal. But you can make them really unsafe. | ||
| ||
