|
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 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. Show nested quote +The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June.
Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement 
|
Nothing like a good old fashion anti-labor judiciary to keep the progressive left fueled up. We just need some more teachers strikes in red states to highlight their poor governance to keep things moving.
|
On June 27 2018 23:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 23:20 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2018 22:42 Plansix wrote:
Anything would be an improvement over the last two presidential primaries. Both of those were like t10 months acid baths. Agreed, it seems so short sighted to use negative ad's and attacks of people within your own party. It may be effective to win the primaries but I think it a huge negative for the party itself. After November, the Democrats should try to reach some sort of agreement to condense the primary season. The 2008 and 2016 death march sucked for everyone. Plus it costs a mint to campaign for that long, which only helps folks that are willing to accept corporate donations. isn't that mostly an issue of state law though? I thoguht it was mostly state law that set when the primaries are.
Presidential primaries are set up by the state parties for the most part (which is why the Democratic and Republican primaries don't line up 1:1 in some states). But ultimately the national party can censure delegates from state parties or legislatures from changing primaries to different days, so they have effective veto power. That's how Florida got punked. It's also how the Democrats shifted away from the bizarre hodgepodge of "winner-take-all" and "proportional" allocation that Republicans are stuck with and helped Trump a ton.
So the national party could just say "everyone hold your elections on X date with open primaries and ranked choice voting or you get 0 delegates" if they really wanted to. But that's a costly expenditure of intraparty capital.
|
On June 28 2018 00:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 23:34 zlefin wrote:On June 27 2018 23:20 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2018 22:42 Plansix wrote:
Anything would be an improvement over the last two presidential primaries. Both of those were like t10 months acid baths. Agreed, it seems so short sighted to use negative ad's and attacks of people within your own party. It may be effective to win the primaries but I think it a huge negative for the party itself. After November, the Democrats should try to reach some sort of agreement to condense the primary season. The 2008 and 2016 death march sucked for everyone. Plus it costs a mint to campaign for that long, which only helps folks that are willing to accept corporate donations. isn't that mostly an issue of state law though? I thoguht it was mostly state law that set when the primaries are. Presidential primaries are set up by the state parties for the most part (which is why the Democratic and Republican primaries don't line up 1:1 in some states). But ultimately the national party can censure state parties or legislatures from changing primaries to different days, so they have effective veto power. So the national party could just say "everyone hold your elections on X date with open ballots and ranked choice voting or you get 0 delegates" if they really wanted to. But that's a costly expenditure of intraparty capital.
Yes. The alternative is for everyone to get together and make a decision on what they want the primary process to look like. I don’t think there is a single argument in favor of the over half a year death march that is currently in place, unless you are a TV network high on campaign money.
|
On June 28 2018 00:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 23:34 zlefin wrote:On June 27 2018 23:20 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2018 22:42 Plansix wrote:
Anything would be an improvement over the last two presidential primaries. Both of those were like t10 months acid baths. Agreed, it seems so short sighted to use negative ad's and attacks of people within your own party. It may be effective to win the primaries but I think it a huge negative for the party itself. After November, the Democrats should try to reach some sort of agreement to condense the primary season. The 2008 and 2016 death march sucked for everyone. Plus it costs a mint to campaign for that long, which only helps folks that are willing to accept corporate donations. isn't that mostly an issue of state law though? I thoguht it was mostly state law that set when the primaries are. Presidential primaries are set up by the state parties for the most part (which is why the Democratic and Republican primaries don't line up 1:1 in some states). But ultimately the national party can censure state parties or legislatures from changing primaries to different days, so they have effective veto power. So the national party could just say "everyone hold your elections on X date with open ballots and ranked choice voting or you get 0 delegates" if they really wanted to. But that's a costly expenditure of intraparty capital.
huh, I'd have thought that in most states the primary date isn't set by the party; but set by state law.
I never liked that national party censure capability; personally it feels kinda unconstitutional to me (not that it necessarily actually is, but it feels that way): that a non-governmental organization can block/interfere with the actions of a state legislature choosing when to hold a primary.
|
On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement
This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president.
|
On June 28 2018 00:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2018 23:34 zlefin wrote:On June 27 2018 23:20 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2018 22:42 Plansix wrote:
Anything would be an improvement over the last two presidential primaries. Both of those were like t10 months acid baths. Agreed, it seems so short sighted to use negative ad's and attacks of people within your own party. It may be effective to win the primaries but I think it a huge negative for the party itself. After November, the Democrats should try to reach some sort of agreement to condense the primary season. The 2008 and 2016 death march sucked for everyone. Plus it costs a mint to campaign for that long, which only helps folks that are willing to accept corporate donations. isn't that mostly an issue of state law though? I thoguht it was mostly state law that set when the primaries are. Presidential primaries are set up by the state parties for the most part (which is why the Democratic and Republican primaries don't line up 1:1 in some states). But ultimately the national party can censure state parties or legislatures from changing primaries to different days, so they have effective veto power. So the national party could just say "everyone hold your elections on X date with open ballots and ranked choice voting or you get 0 delegates" if they really wanted to. But that's a costly expenditure of intraparty capital. huh, I'd have thought that in most states the primary date isn't set by the party; but set by state law. I never liked that national party censure capability; personally it feels kinda unconstitutional to me (not that it necessarily actually is, but it feels that way): that a non-governmental organization can block/interfere with the actions of a state legislature choosing when to hold a primary.
The state law memorializes the how the process will be conducted, the rules and applies standard voting laws to the primary. The state does not “control” the primary, the political party does. It is important to remember that the political parties themselves are not enshrined within our government. The Constitution does not contemplate or address the concept of political parties, let alone a primary system.
|
The thing is, it's really just the state parties asking the state legislatures to provide funds and infrastructure for their primary/putting their stuff onto the ballot, particularly for presidential elections where the entity "nominating" someone isn't actually the states at all.
That's part of why the state primary process can be completely disentangled from voting: caucuses, for example, don't work like normal elections at all and can completely ignore state infrastructure. You could also theoretically just have an entire party gather together in one place and pick a candidate if it's small enough then get them on the ballot where they can, which is good for democracy (well, it'd be good if we didn't have first-past-the-post everywhere).
Considering the antipathy towards political parties of a good chunk of the founding fathers, it's not too surprising there's no protections for them within the Constitution.
|
On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president.
Weren't you the one espousing the soundness of the court's decisions yesterday? Doesn't hold as much weight when it is so obvious that the results would be switched had a few people in a few states switched their votes.
|
I also totally don't see any problem whatsoever with labeling anyone and everyone who doesn't tow Trump's line a charlatan. Totally no fascist implications there at all.
Also apparently Good Boy Sessions(tm) made fun of all the immigrant children he's separated from their families. Because that's funny. And the reaction to it wasn't booing, but laughter. Good.
+ Show Spoiler +Apparently I'm feeling very sarcastic today. Better than being racist as fuck, I suppose.
|
On June 28 2018 00:00 Plansix wrote:
Nothing like a good old fashion anti-labor judiciary to keep the progressive left fueled up. We just need some more teachers strikes in red states to highlight their poor governance to keep things moving.
It's not really an anti-labor decision so much as a pro-freedom decision. The idea that a state can force someone to support political speech that they oppose is fairly repugnant. All this decision does is level the playing field, knocking out what is effectively an illiberal subsidy for public sector unions. Now the public sector unions have to compete for dollars like everyone else. That's how it should be.
|
On June 28 2018 00:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:11 zlefin wrote:On June 28 2018 00:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2018 23:34 zlefin wrote:On June 27 2018 23:20 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2018 22:42 Plansix wrote:
Anything would be an improvement over the last two presidential primaries. Both of those were like t10 months acid baths. Agreed, it seems so short sighted to use negative ad's and attacks of people within your own party. It may be effective to win the primaries but I think it a huge negative for the party itself. After November, the Democrats should try to reach some sort of agreement to condense the primary season. The 2008 and 2016 death march sucked for everyone. Plus it costs a mint to campaign for that long, which only helps folks that are willing to accept corporate donations. isn't that mostly an issue of state law though? I thoguht it was mostly state law that set when the primaries are. Presidential primaries are set up by the state parties for the most part (which is why the Democratic and Republican primaries don't line up 1:1 in some states). But ultimately the national party can censure state parties or legislatures from changing primaries to different days, so they have effective veto power. So the national party could just say "everyone hold your elections on X date with open ballots and ranked choice voting or you get 0 delegates" if they really wanted to. But that's a costly expenditure of intraparty capital. huh, I'd have thought that in most states the primary date isn't set by the party; but set by state law. I never liked that national party censure capability; personally it feels kinda unconstitutional to me (not that it necessarily actually is, but it feels that way): that a non-governmental organization can block/interfere with the actions of a state legislature choosing when to hold a primary. The state law memorializes the how the process will be conducted, the rules and applies standard voting laws to the primary. The state does not “control” the primary, the political party does. It is important to remember that the political parties themselves are not enshrined within our government. The Constitution does not contemplate or address the concept of political parties, let alone a primary system.
yeah, I see that distinction. I still don't like it though.
personally I think that political parties should be better enshrined with the government, given how intertwined they are with actual governance.
I'd prefer to have them classified as government organizations of some sort and subject to things like gov't record-keeping requirements and FOIA.
|
United States43675 Posts
On June 28 2018 00:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:00 Plansix wrote:
Nothing like a good old fashion anti-labor judiciary to keep the progressive left fueled up. We just need some more teachers strikes in red states to highlight their poor governance to keep things moving. It's not really an anti-labor decision so much as a pro-freedom decision. The idea that a state can force someone to support political speech that they oppose is fairly repugnant.
You are aware that taxpayers are forced to support the political speech of politicians they voted against, right? Because you ought to be but based on this post it feels like you’re not.
|
On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president.
Yes, opposing Donald Trump means you’re a charlatan. This is truly Donald Trump era logic.
|
On June 28 2018 00:27 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president. Weren't you the one espousing the soundness of the court's decisions yesterday? Doesn't hold as much weight when it is so obvious that the results would be switched had a few people in a few states switched their votes.
It was the sound and correct decision. And for all of the reasons that Igne pointed out (which is pretty much the same stuff that I pointed in case y'all missed it), it was utterly absurd for people around here to challenge it like they did.
|
On June 28 2018 00:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 00:00 Plansix wrote:
Nothing like a good old fashion anti-labor judiciary to keep the progressive left fueled up. We just need some more teachers strikes in red states to highlight their poor governance to keep things moving. It's not really an anti-labor decision so much as a pro-freedom decision. The idea that a state can force someone to support political speech that they oppose is fairly repugnant. You are aware that taxpayers are forced to support the political speech of politicians they voted against, right? Because you ought to be but based on this post it feels like you’re not.
I mean, that's basically what compromise is. But given xDaunt's particular leanings, it sounds like he's totally on board with the Republicans' modern strategy of never compromising for anything, ever, for any reason. Even if it shuts down the government. So this doesn't surprise me.
|
On June 28 2018 00:00 Plansix wrote:
Nothing like a good old fashion anti-labor judiciary to keep the progressive left fueled up. We just need some more teachers strikes in red states to highlight their poor governance to keep things moving.
What will be interesting is if unions will decide to do away with exclusivity concept, or shift more to the minority union model to prevent freeloaders who will benefit as part of the ruling.
Otherwise, the case puts a higher burden for unions to justify their existence since non-membership will now accrue the same labor benefits as membership without the costs. If unions get their shit together, they'll make the CBA's a lot more narrow to focus solely on salary and working conditions whilst shifting a lot of the other benefits and protections to members only.
I'll note that while I disagree 100% with the ruling, organized labor will have to adapt and overcome. And I think I will, this is far from a deathblow, and has a good chance of galvanizing them even more.
On June 28 2018 00:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:00 Plansix wrote:
Nothing like a good old fashion anti-labor judiciary to keep the progressive left fueled up. We just need some more teachers strikes in red states to highlight their poor governance to keep things moving. It's not really an anti-labor decision so much as a pro-freedom decision. The idea that a state can force someone to support political speech that they oppose is fairly repugnant. All this decision does is level the playing field, knocking out what is effectively an illiberal subsidy for public sector unions. Now the public sector unions have to compete for dollars like everyone else. That's how it should be.
The opinion seemed to lean heavily on "hey it's really hard to do math and figure out if the collective bargaining expense charged to non members is actually accurate, this is an undue burden". I don't find the blame on cost/ pricing transparency to be particularly compelling.
|
On June 28 2018 00:41 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president. Yes, opposing Donald Trump means you’re a charlatan. This is truly Donald Trump era logic.
Do you consider yourself a conservative? If not, then my comment doesn't apply to you. And I've already written at length as to why never-Trump conservatives are charlatans, so if you want to see the reasoning, go find those posts in the old thread.
|
On June 28 2018 00:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 00:00 Plansix wrote:
Nothing like a good old fashion anti-labor judiciary to keep the progressive left fueled up. We just need some more teachers strikes in red states to highlight their poor governance to keep things moving. It's not really an anti-labor decision so much as a pro-freedom decision. The idea that a state can force someone to support political speech that they oppose is fairly repugnant. You are aware that taxpayers are forced to support the political speech of politicians they voted against, right? Because you ought to be but based on this post it feels like you’re not.
Sure, but clearly there's a compelling state interest in paying politicians, so allowances have to be made on that count. Don't get me wrong. I hate the idea of having to pay Maxine Waters' salary, but that's not something that I can avoid.
|
Funny, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars funding the salary of a buffoon who spends his time inciting hatred, and making a mockery of the US on the world stage. So I guess there's that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
