|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 09 2018 08:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:
To interrupt this thrilling moral high ground fight briefly.
Do I understand this situation correctly?
With the DoJ's withdrawal its now up the presiding judge of this case to decide if he agrees with Texas or not.
And if he does, can the case get throw up to the Supreme Court or is that also up to the DoJ to file for?
Just how close is the death of the ACA and how sick in their stomach are Republicans at the thought of having to draft a viable replacement in an election year? even if the DoJ doesn't defend it; anyone else with standing can also defend it. From the earlier description it sounded like some of the State attorney generals are going to defend it in court (because it'll affect their state's finances, thus giving them standing). yes, from the article earlier: "The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”"
So what trump did wasnt as worse as obama beacuse trump allowed the law to be defend by others while obama didn't let others defend doma?
|
On June 09 2018 08:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:24 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:
To interrupt this thrilling moral high ground fight briefly.
Do I understand this situation correctly?
With the DoJ's withdrawal its now up the presiding judge of this case to decide if he agrees with Texas or not.
And if he does, can the case get throw up to the Supreme Court or is that also up to the DoJ to file for?
Just how close is the death of the ACA and how sick in their stomach are Republicans at the thought of having to draft a viable replacement in an election year? even if the DoJ doesn't defend it; anyone else with standing can also defend it. From the earlier description it sounded like some of the State attorney generals are going to defend it in court (because it'll affect their state's finances, thus giving them standing). yes, from the article earlier: "The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”" So what trump did wasnt as worse as obama beacuse trump allowed the law to be defend by others while obama didn't let others defend doma?
no, tha'ts incorrect.
trump has no choice in whether to allow others to defend the law. he coudln't prohibit it if he wanted to. anyone with standing can defend it.
likewise obama couldn't prohibit anyone with standing from defending doma.
|
On June 09 2018 07:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 06:54 ChristianS wrote:On June 09 2018 05:55 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 05:46 NewSunshine wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. Article 3 of the DOMA was a provision that denied the benefit of marriage to any couple that wasn't one man and one woman. Are you suggesting that challenging a law which hurt gay couples across the country is in fact comparable to the Trump administration refusing to uphold a critical law for people who need healthcare? That somehow one begets the other? Article 3 of DOMA was a duly passed and signed Federal statute, that was obliged to be defended by the Executive Branch in their capacity of executing the laws of the United States. The Obama justice department under Holder declined to do it. It’s very rich that today everybody is outraged that the Trump administration is refusing to defend a legal challenge to PPACA. You either believe it’s the governments responsibility to defend its laws in court, or you don’t. You earn your own partisanship if you suggest norms only apply to laws you like. Period. "The other guys did a similar thing" isn't a defense of the behavior, it's a deflection. Conservatives claim to hold rule of law as one of their core principles. This contradicts that principle, just about as overtly as possible. You can't just say "ah well, all's fair in love and politics" and still claim to support that principle. A true conservative response would be "we're still going to uphold rule of law even when the other guys won't, this is why you should support conservatives," or upon seeing the Trump administration make this move, "I condemn this in the same way that I condemned it when Obama did something similar." Otherwise, I guess "conservatives" will have to join the liberals in pissing on Hayek's grave, and quietly try to forget they ever pretended to serve higher principles. We tried a couple decades of it, but then that didn’t take. Too many abuses of power taken against an unarmed opponent. The next line is showing that we will observe the standards you set, and apply them with just as much fervor. It won’t be as principled as rejecting it with no actual change, the ruling class against the ruled. But at least it will give reason to fear the next exercise of federal power against the less wanted citizens. You might not like your opponents following the same rules you set. I’m waiting for the Dem politician that condemns the Obama administration for their actions in cases like this, and tells their base that it’s unprincipled and will lead to further abuses once more Americans realize the rules don’t apply to people of ChristianS’s ilk. They might be a little angry. First stage: see how Democrats like the new standards. Next stage: see if they’re willing to compromise and restrain the executive and judicial branches now that they see a little of the pain they inflicted on others.
Well which is it? Did Obama change the precedent? Or was it changed a couple decades ago? And if it's the latter, you're really going to have to do more than just assert that conservatives followed an ethic that liberals didn't; the Bush administration was many things, but rigorously obedient to constitutional bounds is probably not high on that list.
And even then, it's still deflection. I've been hearing my whole life from conservatives that rule of law is a foundational principle of conservatism, one of its most core beliefs, because the alternative is tyranny. Now they're tossing it out because they think the other side isn't following it as rigorously so why bother? If the opposing side is following tyrannical policies, what kind of an answer is it to say "okay, we'll follow tyrannical policies too and maybe that will stop it"?
If you only follow a principle when everybody else in the room also follows that principle, you're not actually a supporter of that principle, you're just willing to obey peer pressure. If a principle is actually foundational to you, you advocate it even when - especially when - it isn't universally followed.
My "ilk" have thought for a long time that conservatives are hypocrites on subjects like "fiscal responsibility" or "limited government," and supporting this action would only serve to confirm that belief. How would that ever make them more likely to form some kind of truce? It's a blatant demonstration of bad faith and favoring politics over principle. Conservatives are in a perfect position to say "look, Trump's not a conservative, and he's betraying rule of law. Liberals, let's come together to condemn this and promise to follow rule of law in the future." But no, instead it's "sucks, doesn't it liberals? Now we're getting all the victories we want, and all it cost us was our principles!" That's perhaps the best possible way to signal to liberals "don't bother forming a truce with us, because we'll just break it as soon as it's convenient."
It's really a perfect showcase for something I've been thinking about for a while: Trumpism is basically conservatism stripped of all its moral commitments. Any position that is premised on "this would make the world a better place" is reframed as self-interest or scrapped. "Rule of law" isn't the basis of good government any more, it's just a truce with the other side, an agreement to pull your punches if the other side will too. Trade policy isn't a way to spread the prosperity of capitalism to the whole world, it's just a means to improving America's position relative to everyone else. In the process, we're seeing the true colors of the "conservatives" who were more than happy to shed those moral commitments as soon as a movement without them existed.
I like that "America First" has the same initials as "Always Forsake," because I think the latter is a more apt description of Trump's foreign (and often domestic) policy.
|
On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s
Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust.
If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again.
|
On June 09 2018 08:40 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:37 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:
To interrupt this thrilling moral high ground fight briefly.
Do I understand this situation correctly?
With the DoJ's withdrawal its now up the presiding judge of this case to decide if he agrees with Texas or not.
And if he does, can the case get throw up to the Supreme Court or is that also up to the DoJ to file for?
Just how close is the death of the ACA and how sick in their stomach are Republicans at the thought of having to draft a viable replacement in an election year? even if the DoJ doesn't defend it; anyone else with standing can also defend it. From the earlier description it sounded like some of the State attorney generals are going to defend it in court (because it'll affect their state's finances, thus giving them standing). yes, from the article earlier: "The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”" So what trump did wasnt as worse as obama beacuse trump allowed the law to be defend by others while obama didn't let others defend doma? no, tha'ts incorrect. trump has no choice in whether to allow others to defend the law. he coudln't prohibit it if he wanted to. anyone with standing can defend it. likewise obama couldn't prohibit anyone with standing from defending doma.
But by your post you said other parties had standing before the doj abandoned it unlike obama who left doma without anyone to defend it.
|
The point is that it is us vs them. Conservatives will always try to take away the protections that allow my wife to get healthcare. Without that, we can’t afford to live in the US and pay for her medication. The conservative have no solution for that problem that will be effective, so why even frame it as anything else.
There are winners and losers in politics. For people who don’t want government mandated healthcare to win, me and my wife need to lose.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36923 Posts
Reminder to all USPMT posters that while we encourage political debates, we do not condone attacks on one another because of one's views. Keep the debates civil and tame.
|
On June 09 2018 08:49 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:40 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:37 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:
To interrupt this thrilling moral high ground fight briefly.
Do I understand this situation correctly?
With the DoJ's withdrawal its now up the presiding judge of this case to decide if he agrees with Texas or not.
And if he does, can the case get throw up to the Supreme Court or is that also up to the DoJ to file for?
Just how close is the death of the ACA and how sick in their stomach are Republicans at the thought of having to draft a viable replacement in an election year? even if the DoJ doesn't defend it; anyone else with standing can also defend it. From the earlier description it sounded like some of the State attorney generals are going to defend it in court (because it'll affect their state's finances, thus giving them standing). yes, from the article earlier: "The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”" So what trump did wasnt as worse as obama beacuse trump allowed the law to be defend by others while obama didn't let others defend doma? no, tha'ts incorrect. trump has no choice in whether to allow others to defend the law. he coudln't prohibit it if he wanted to. anyone with standing can defend it. likewise obama couldn't prohibit anyone with standing from defending doma. But by your post you said other parties had standing before the doj abandoned it unlike obama who left doma without anyone to defend it.
that's probably you misreading my posts. there's a chance I wrote something wrong too; but more likely you're misreading them.
|
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
|
On June 09 2018 08:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust. If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again.
I didn't say that he was a Nazi sympathizer who was okay with the holocaust. I said that he is like someone who was willing to completely ignore all of the harm of voting for the Nazis might bring about (and boy did it bring about harm) because he likes how voting for them might benefit him. The point is that historically, we know what happens when people do this. It leads to things like the holocaust.
I did not say that he wanted to kill me. I said that his espousal of policies that if implemented would be good for him but also extremely bad for me makes his willingness to ignore the negative consequences to me of his votes for himself a threat to my life.
There's a huge difference between what I said and the foul tasting words you shoved into my mouth to disguise what I said.
EDIT: I'm also Jewish by decent if not in practice, so Danglars literally defends the rights of the ideological heirs of people who killed my ancestors to continue advocating for that ideology. Liberal hostility to white supremacists and how that infringes on their free speech is pretty much the only issue Danglars gets really passionate about in this thread.
So anyway, he votes for people who will defend the neo-nazi's right to advocate nazi ideology and also have promised to remove as much of the changes to US law that ensure I can get health care as they possibly can.
There's not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. There's really not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely.
|
On June 09 2018 08:59 IgnE wrote:
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
Which is where I have ended up. The long and sort of it Obama was right and Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite.
|
United States41991 Posts
On June 09 2018 08:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust. If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again.
Few points here
A) Republicans are trying to take away his healthcare. It's not a huge reach from there to "they're trying to kill me"
B) He didn't call them Nazi sympathizers
C) The leader of the Republican party has been retweeting racist propaganda from this guy
+ Show Spoiler + so honestly, if he had called them Nazi sympathizers, where is the lie?
Perhaps it would be wiser for the "good" Republicans to move away from "these accusations of Nazism are spurious" and move towards "okay, so we have a few Nazis and one of them is our leader but that doesn't make us Nazis by association".
|
On June 09 2018 06:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 06:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. So your argument is that it's actually impossible for Republicans to take the high road and that they will instantly and inevitably sink to the lowest level possible, and anything the Democrats do that is a challenge to the social and legal political norms must be carried out by the Republicans? I mean, fine, that's more or less what everyone knew anyway but it's nice for you to admit your side are moral-less pond scum, and the only hope for your government's future is for Democrats to get into power and lead the way in terms of proper behaviour as apparently the Republicans are simply unable to figure it out themselves. And before you say 'but I said no such thing and you are making assumptions' you're making a pretty grand assumption that if Obama had done what you claim that Trump wouldn't have done it. He's sure as hell flouted a bunch of other norms that nobody else has up to this point, so I see no reason why he wouldn't have taken this exact action regardless. And I'm sure you'd have come up with some way to defend it nonetheless. As things are, there is still a difference between publically announcing a controversial decision and just quietly hoping nobody will notice that you did it (or in this case, didn't do it). I should have thought that was obvious. One is at least openly standing up and acknowledging what you've done, allowing for proper discussion (and outrage, of course), the other is just cowardly. Not weighing in on the specifics of the DOMA case, I know very little about it. I shall take it as read that it's functionally the same broad situation as this one with the ACA. It matters that the specifics of the DOMA case mirrored enough specifics of this case. Obama established the precedent. Maybe you and others thought it was pure win, because the opponents who disagreed would certainly hold themselves to higher standards than the low ones set by the Obama administration in this case. Well, that’s just the way you get more abuse of authority—by unilateral disarmament. I really have to flip this one back on you as well. You more or less admit to being moral-less pond scum on principle, and take solace that your opponents will do the same. I’ll say forced to do the same, but you wouldn’t agree. Your side taught proper behavior, we’ll follow it. But now you have recriminizations at following the lead? Don’t make me laugh. You’re observing a second set of rules hoping that nobody notices, so it never bites you in the butt. Then you have the gall to turn back around and claim Trump’s administration might’ve done it if Obama hadn’t done it first. I don’t think you have even good footing for criticizing Trump’s departure from norms, since you are so recalcitrant when he follows the new norms. Why should I ever accept this criticism of Trump, if you wont accept similar criticism of Obama? You care about these things, but will turn a blind eye to them for partisan motives? If you’re okay with Obama doing it, at least hold yourself in high enough esteem to extend the same to Trump.
No, I highlight that your guys are moral-less pond scum. I'm British remember. While US politics interests me, I've no true dog in the race. I've said several times that your Democrats are basically our Tories, and I don't like them much either.
So neither of your parties comes close to representing my political viewpoints. But when discussing US politics, all I've got are the two to work with. And that Rand guy, I guess. He's sort of a thing.
And when did I say Obama gets a free pass? Your assumption there, matey boy. If it is as you say then yes he should have defended it, and lost, I guess?
But the fact he didn't doesn't make the fact that your side of the aisle took his example and then went further better. It doesn't excuse that. It's not even an explanation. It's your side throwing a hypocritical bitch fest and then deciding 'fuck it, they did it so why don't we?'
You're not only ceding the moral high ground, you're admitting it doesn't exist unless the Democrats enforce it, because GODDAMN IT, if the Democrats do a thing, Republicans are going to do it too, and do it worse than they did.
On the other hand, your side of the aisle could have said 'no, Obama did this and that was wrong, and we are better than that, and we will defend this law because it's law, even though we hate it, because that is how proper governance of 'MURICA works under a Republican government'.
But hey. One can dream about actual principled governance, right? Maybe the Democrats can restore it one day. It's obvious your guys aren't going to.
EDIT: And just to make clear, from the sound of it, it seems that yes, Obama should have defended DOMA, and had I been around at the time would have said the same thing. Probably. As mentioned I don't know the ins and outs. If anything I'd have preferred it to be done properly because it's hugely beneficial for things like that to be properly struck down in the courts, rather than it to look a bit shady.
|
On June 09 2018 08:59 IgnE wrote:
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
The bolded isn't strictly true. Someone who doesn't care about rule of law could still accuse conservatives of hypocrisy if they nominally supported it and then didn't act like it. I can accuse a Mormon of hypocrisy for secretly drinking coffee, even if I unapologetically drink coffee myself.
Personally, I didn't like Obama's move, but iirc the ADF or someone wound up handling the defense instead, which seemed like a better outcome anyway. If a similar thing happens here (where a qualified group who actually supports the ACA defends it instead) I think that's not too bad an outcome. In general I think we need a better system for when a controversial law that the current administration opposes gets challenged in court. Even if the administration elects to defend it, it's hard to imagine them being the best possible defenders.
|
On June 09 2018 08:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:49 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:40 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:37 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:
To interrupt this thrilling moral high ground fight briefly.
Do I understand this situation correctly?
With the DoJ's withdrawal its now up the presiding judge of this case to decide if he agrees with Texas or not.
And if he does, can the case get throw up to the Supreme Court or is that also up to the DoJ to file for?
Just how close is the death of the ACA and how sick in their stomach are Republicans at the thought of having to draft a viable replacement in an election year? even if the DoJ doesn't defend it; anyone else with standing can also defend it. From the earlier description it sounded like some of the State attorney generals are going to defend it in court (because it'll affect their state's finances, thus giving them standing). yes, from the article earlier: "The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”" So what trump did wasnt as worse as obama beacuse trump allowed the law to be defend by others while obama didn't let others defend doma? no, tha'ts incorrect. trump has no choice in whether to allow others to defend the law. he coudln't prohibit it if he wanted to. anyone with standing can defend it. likewise obama couldn't prohibit anyone with standing from defending doma. But by your post you said other parties had standing before the doj abandoned it unlike obama who left doma without anyone to defend it. that's probably you misreading my posts. there's a chance I wrote something wrong too; but more likely you're misreading them.
Its not even something to dispute. Your post clearly says that the court granted standing to 16 states to intervene in the case. Are you desputing specific clear points in your post?
|
On June 09 2018 09:19 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:59 IgnE wrote:
it seems pretty clear to me that that danglars has a point and that trump's executive decision not to defend a particular law isnt a new thing. elections have consequences
the most irritating aspect of this whole conversation is that people who would accuse trump of refusing to defend "the rule of law" are the same people who trivialize such acts in the context of gay marriage etc.
theres an argumentative hypocrisy here on behalf of people attacking danglars right now, even if danglars is hypocritical himself in a matter of principle. but those are two different ways of being hypocritical
the ACA defender and DOMA opponent views herself as consistent on matters of justice, argument be damned, but fails to see that the norms of justice, that empty signifier, are precisely what is in dispute. elections have consequences people. this is an ordinary matter of prosecutorial discretion in view of serving justice. it's just that Trumpism is the point de capiton here, and Trumpism's sprawling web of signifiers is becoming increasingly disentangled from centrist liberalism which has a different set of valences for "justice"
the irony, i think, is that it is impossible to even levy the charge of hypocrisy against danglars in good faith unless you also opposed obama's failure to defend DOMA. the better approach is a polemical one in the domain of "justice" but then you are talking to someone who doesnt share your language. so what can you do but shake your head and say "well played, republicans"
The bolded isn't strictly true. Someone who doesn't care about rule of law could still accuse conservatives of hypocrisy if they nominally supported it and then didn't act like it. I can accuse a Mormon of hypocrisy for secretly drinking coffee, even if I unapologetically drink coffee myself. Personally, I didn't like Obama's move, but iirc the ADF or someone wound up handling the defense instead, which seemed like a better outcome anyway. If a similar thing happens here (where a qualified group who actually supports the ACA defends it instead) I think that's not too bad an outcome. In general I think we need a better system for when a controversial law that the current administration opposes gets challenged in court. Even if the administration elects to defend it, it's hard to imagine them being the best possible defenders.
its a bit of a weak argument to say "hey you are ok with this thing i think is ok even though you said you didnt like it before" especially when its being thrown at people who arent directly responsible for the act itself. so yeah you are right, even though i haven't seen anyone advance such a limited critique. it always seem to come packaged with outrage over trump wrapped in some vague legal argument about norms
|
On June 09 2018 09:05 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:48 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust. If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again. I didn't say that he was a Nazi sympathizer who was okay with the holocaust. I said that he is like someone who was willing to completely ignore all of the harm of voting for the Nazis might bring about (and boy did it bring about harm) because he likes how voting for them might benefit him. The point is that historically, we know what happens when people do this. It leads to things like the holocaust. I did not say that he wanted to kill me. I said that his espousal of policies that if implemented would be good for him but also extremely bad for me makes his willingness to ignore the negative consequences to me of his votes for himself a threat to my life. There's a huge difference between what I said and the foul tasting words you shoved into my mouth to disguise what I said. EDIT: I'm also Jewish by decent if not in practice, so Danglars literally defends the rights of the ideological heirs of people who killed my ancestors to continue advocating for that ideology. Liberal hostility to white supremacists and how that infringes on their free speech is pretty much the only issue Danglars gets really passionate about in this thread. So anyway, he votes for people who will defend the neo-nazi's right to advocate nazi ideology and also have promised to remove as much of the changes to US law that ensure I can get health care as they possibly can. There's not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely. There's really not a lot of ways to dress this up nicely.
You said he and people like him are a threat to your life. You compared him to people that supported the nazis.
Your edit is even more explicit in connecting conservatives and nazis by calling conservatives the "ideological heirs to nazis".
Danglers gets passionate about a lot of things you're the one thats trying to frame him specifically as a nazi.
There is every way to dress up your disagreements with someone that isnt bearly thined appeals to the holocaust to support your stance.
|
Wait, why is everyone pretending that Obama set the precedent here? His statements and letters to Congress when he made the decision even cites previous cases:
http://journaloflaw.us/1 Pub. L. Misc./1-1/JoL1-1, PLM1-1, Fois to Hatch 1996.pdf
In your letter of February 21, 1996, you made several inquiries regarding the President’s directive that the Department of Justice decline to defend section 567 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 186, 328-29 (1996), in the event of a constitutional challenge to that provision in court.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?redir=1&article=1280&context=facpub
The letter questioned whether the decision of the Department of Justice in that case not to defend the constitutionality of a 1968 law-a law that sought to overrule the Supreme Court's 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona-was
consistent with the constitutional duty of the Executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
|
On June 09 2018 09:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:58 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:49 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:40 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:37 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:
To interrupt this thrilling moral high ground fight briefly.
Do I understand this situation correctly?
With the DoJ's withdrawal its now up the presiding judge of this case to decide if he agrees with Texas or not.
And if he does, can the case get throw up to the Supreme Court or is that also up to the DoJ to file for?
Just how close is the death of the ACA and how sick in their stomach are Republicans at the thought of having to draft a viable replacement in an election year? even if the DoJ doesn't defend it; anyone else with standing can also defend it. From the earlier description it sounded like some of the State attorney generals are going to defend it in court (because it'll affect their state's finances, thus giving them standing). yes, from the article earlier: "The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”" So what trump did wasnt as worse as obama beacuse trump allowed the law to be defend by others while obama didn't let others defend doma? no, tha'ts incorrect. trump has no choice in whether to allow others to defend the law. he coudln't prohibit it if he wanted to. anyone with standing can defend it. likewise obama couldn't prohibit anyone with standing from defending doma. But by your post you said other parties had standing before the doj abandoned it unlike obama who left doma without anyone to defend it. that's probably you misreading my posts. there's a chance I wrote something wrong too; but more likely you're misreading them. Its not even something to dispute. Your post clearly says that the court granted standing to 16 states to intervene in the case. Are you desputing specific clear points in your post?
ok, this is you failing at reading comprehension. you need to read more carefully.
I never said obama prohibited others from defending doma. obama didn't leave doma with noone to defend it; others could and did defend it. And it's not possible for obama to prohibit others from defending it even if he wanted to.
|
On June 09 2018 08:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election. But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s Really? Boiling down his grievances to "you and people like you want to kill me"? He all but accuses republicans of being nazi sympathizers that are okay with the holocaust. If his post doesn't shock you with how them vs us it is you really need to read it again.
First off, I meant to edit the post I did before that to add the quote, it was meant to be an addition to my point of view, because I cannot provide a first hand experience. I make my assumptions based on what I read, and trying to imagine how different my life would be.
Second, he did not accuse reps of being nazi sympathizers. Like,
NOT
EVEN
CLOSE
He made a comparison. A comparison of how destructive to other social groups the actions of the republican party are, and how the republican voters enable it, to how people in germany were led to believe that nazism was great, the jews were the problem, and how they enabled one of the biggest atrocities in history. He did not even say all of these germans were ok with the holocaust, I believe they probably weren't but they had no idea what they were actually voting for.
Which brings me back to my first post and a point I made there. Society has evolved. Hopefully, in the past 70 years our society has evolved and our problems have become different. I am worried that we are blinded/not seeing the bigger picture/missing something in the peripheral vision.
Imagine this: after trump leaves office, we find that thousands of illegal women, children and men were sexually abused while in these detention centers, that some hundreds were sold off by corrupt emigration agents to trafficking rings. Nobody (well, almost nobody) wanted this when they wanted to stop illegal crossings and voted for a man that promised them that. People weren't gassed like the jews were, it doesn't make it any less atrocious. The voters did enable it and they have their share of the blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/img/charles/2015/11/22/LGF1827.jpg)
