|
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 March 21 2018 05:58 Gorsameth wrote:
How does requiring pregnant women to be informed of all the medical options available to them violate the first amendment?
How does forcing non medical facilities to clear state that they are not medical facilities violate the first amendment?
This reads completely crazy, is misinformation patients about medical options protected by the right to free speech? Oo.
Even government interference on behalf of the consumer is still government interference, and must be shot down with bolts of holy fire. It's up to the people and businesses themselves to make choices that are in everyone's best interests.
I think it's sad that we're not yet beyond the point where I have to indicate my sarcasm in the above.
|
The crux of the matter seems to be if it's reasonable to require non-medical facilities to state that they are non-medical facilities. I certainly think it is.
|
This sure does make Mueller's investigation a little harder for Trump to shut down lol
|
|
|
On March 21 2018 06:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
The crux of the matter seems to be if it's reasonable to require non-medical facilities to state that they are non-medical facilities. I certainly think it is.
But like most California laws, they shoot the moon and get challenged because of it. If they had limited it to “Yo, we are not a medical facility, we cannot provide medical advice,” I doubt this case would have had legs.
|
On March 21 2018 04:45 ChristianS wrote:
My sister who works at state department was joking she wants to get a shirt that says "I am the Deep State." I'm quite confident she has never leaked confidential information or engaged in any illicit efforts to undermine the elected government. On the other hand, a lot of her work is confidential and she definitely plays a role in implementing national (especially foreign) policy.
If asked that question, I think I'd have to answer that yes, I do think there are a bunch of unelected officials, both military and civilian, that have a lot of influence on national policy. I don't think they're, like, a secret society or cabal, but that's not what the question asked.
Well, that’s not a question. Maybe it’s your own collage of questions like the following:
As it stands right now, do you think that unelected or appointed officials in the federal government have too much influence in determining federal policy or is there the right balance of influence between elected and unelected officials?
The term Deep State refers to the possible existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy. Do you think this type of Deep State in the federal government definitely exists, probably exists, probably does not exist, or definitely does not exist?
The manipulation in secret was very much a part of the question. The very big topic in America today is if a group or groupings operate for their own personal and political reasons instead of at the behest and direction of elected leaders. So the question correctly put out there that they do so without the approval of the elected top level (and maybe extended to cabinet)
|
On March 21 2018 05:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +It’s been a big year for free speech at the Supreme Court. Two of the most high-profile cases argued before the court so far have revolved around free speech rights, four other cases on the docket this term involve free speech questions, and yet another case where the issue is paramount greets the court on Tuesday.
The court today is hearing arguments on whether the state of California is trampling on the free speech rights of crisis pregnancy centers — nonprofit organizations that do not perform abortions and encourage women to seek alternatives to the procedure — by requiring them to post notices explaining patients’ ability to access abortion and other medical services. In December, attorneys for a baker at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado argued that a state anti-discrimination law violates his free speech rights as a self-described cake artist by requiring him to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Last month, the justices heard oral arguments in a case about whether state laws allowing unions to require nonmembers to pay fees violate those employees’ right to free speech.
Whichever way the rulings come down this spring and summer, it’s almost certain that the winning side will include Chief Justice John Roberts, who has spent his 12-plus years at the helm of the high court quietly carving out a space as a prolific and decisive arbiter of free speech law. Supporters and critics both agree that during his tenure, the court has dramatically expanded the reach of the First Amendment by striking down a wide range of statutes for encroaching on free speech rights. And Roberts has authored more majority opinions on free speech than any other justice during his tenure, signaling that this is an area where he wants to create a legacy.
But just what that legacy will be is highly contested. Roberts’s admirers argue that his commitment to the First Amendment transcends ideological boundaries. But others contend that his decisions don’t protect speech across the board. Instead, they say that Roberts is more than willing to allow the government to restrict speech when it’s speech he disagrees with — meaning free speech is becoming a legal tool that favors corporations over individuals. 538Show nested quote +The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a highly anticipated case that combines two often controversial topics: the First Amendment and abortion. The question before the justices today was whether a California law that directs “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide their patients with specific kinds of information – including, for some, the availability of low-cost or free abortions – violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. After roughly an hour of oral argument, the law appeared to be in some jeopardy, not only among the court’s more conservative justices but also perhaps at least with Justice Elena Kagan, one of the more liberal justices.
The law at issue is the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, also known as the Reproductive FACT Act. The California legislature passed the law because it was worried that crisis pregnancy centers – nonprofit organizations, often affiliated with Christian groups, that are opposed to abortion – were posing as full-service reproductive health clinics and providing pregnant women with inaccurate or misleading information about their options. The act requires nonprofits that are licensed to provide medical services (such as pregnancy tests and ultrasound examinations) to post notices to inform their patients that free or low-cost abortions are available, while centers without such licenses – which try to support pregnant women by supplying them with diapers and formula, for example – must include disclaimers in their advertisements to make clear, in up to 13 languages, that their services do not include medical help. [...]
Justice Anthony Kennedy also expressed doubts about the law. In one question that may prove to be pivotal in the case, he asked Farris what would happen if an unlicensed clinic wanted to put up a billboard that said only, in large letters, “Choose Life.” Would that message trigger the law’s notice requirement?
Farris responded that the billboard would indeed have to disclose that the nonprofit does not provide medical services – a point with which Klein seemed to agree. Scotusblog
Hmm, two more arguments to listen to on Friday. This law always seemed that it was too obviously targeted at just one set of organizations, which seems to be Kagan's objection.
Fun fact about her, supposedly since Scalia knew Obama wouldn't appoint a conservative, he asked for Kagan.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html
She also gave a very nice speech after he died at the law school now bearing his name.
Just some things that occurred to me reading this.
|
On March 21 2018 06:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2018 04:45 ChristianS wrote:
My sister who works at state department was joking she wants to get a shirt that says "I am the Deep State." I'm quite confident she has never leaked confidential information or engaged in any illicit efforts to undermine the elected government. On the other hand, a lot of her work is confidential and she definitely plays a role in implementing national (especially foreign) policy.
If asked that question, I think I'd have to answer that yes, I do think there are a bunch of unelected officials, both military and civilian, that have a lot of influence on national policy. I don't think they're, like, a secret society or cabal, but that's not what the question asked. Well, that’s not a question. Maybe it’s your own collage of questions like the following: As it stands right now, do you think that unelected or appointed officials in the federal government have too much influence in determining federal policy or is there the right balance of influence between elected and unelected officials? The term Deep State refers to the possible existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy. Do you think this type of Deep State in the federal government definitely exists, probably exists, probably does not exist, or definitely does not exist? The manipulation in secret was very much a part of the question. The very big topic in America today is if a group or groupings operate for their own personal and political reasons instead of at the behest and direction of elected leaders. So the question correctly put out there that they do so without the approval of the elected top level (and maybe extended to cabinet)
Can you please explain how it is a very big topic in the America today when over 60% of the people in the poll had no idea the Deep State was? You seem to be asserting a very charitable reading of the poll.
|
On March 21 2018 06:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2018 06:17 Danglars wrote:On March 21 2018 04:45 ChristianS wrote:
My sister who works at state department was joking she wants to get a shirt that says "I am the Deep State." I'm quite confident she has never leaked confidential information or engaged in any illicit efforts to undermine the elected government. On the other hand, a lot of her work is confidential and she definitely plays a role in implementing national (especially foreign) policy.
If asked that question, I think I'd have to answer that yes, I do think there are a bunch of unelected officials, both military and civilian, that have a lot of influence on national policy. I don't think they're, like, a secret society or cabal, but that's not what the question asked. Well, that’s not a question. Maybe it’s your own collage of questions like the following: As it stands right now, do you think that unelected or appointed officials in the federal government have too much influence in determining federal policy or is there the right balance of influence between elected and unelected officials? The term Deep State refers to the possible existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy. Do you think this type of Deep State in the federal government definitely exists, probably exists, probably does not exist, or definitely does not exist? The manipulation in secret was very much a part of the question. The very big topic in America today is if a group or groupings operate for their own personal and political reasons instead of at the behest and direction of elected leaders. So the question correctly put out there that they do so without the approval of the elected top level (and maybe extended to cabinet) Can you please explain how it is a very big topic in the America today when over 60% of the people in the poll had no idea the Deep State was? You seem to be asserting a very charitable reading of the poll.
The term itself is newish and had/has a very conspiratorial vibe. The thought that power in Washington is wielded very much by an elite not representative of voting Americans figures heavily in the 2016 election. Consider the relation to “drain the swamp” campaign message.
|
On March 21 2018 06:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2018 06:24 Plansix wrote:On March 21 2018 06:17 Danglars wrote:On March 21 2018 04:45 ChristianS wrote:
My sister who works at state department was joking she wants to get a shirt that says "I am the Deep State." I'm quite confident she has never leaked confidential information or engaged in any illicit efforts to undermine the elected government. On the other hand, a lot of her work is confidential and she definitely plays a role in implementing national (especially foreign) policy.
If asked that question, I think I'd have to answer that yes, I do think there are a bunch of unelected officials, both military and civilian, that have a lot of influence on national policy. I don't think they're, like, a secret society or cabal, but that's not what the question asked. Well, that’s not a question. Maybe it’s your own collage of questions like the following: As it stands right now, do you think that unelected or appointed officials in the federal government have too much influence in determining federal policy or is there the right balance of influence between elected and unelected officials? The term Deep State refers to the possible existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy. Do you think this type of Deep State in the federal government definitely exists, probably exists, probably does not exist, or definitely does not exist? The manipulation in secret was very much a part of the question. The very big topic in America today is if a group or groupings operate for their own personal and political reasons instead of at the behest and direction of elected leaders. So the question correctly put out there that they do so without the approval of the elected top level (and maybe extended to cabinet) Can you please explain how it is a very big topic in the America today when over 60% of the people in the poll had no idea the Deep State was? You seem to be asserting a very charitable reading of the poll. The term itself is newish and had/has a very conspiratorial vibe. The thought that power in Washington is wielded very much by an elite not representative of voting Americans figures heavily in the 2016 election. Consider the relation to “drain the swamp” campaign message.
The “Drain the Swamp” campaign message is like a rorschach test, people see what they want. I could make a compelling argument that it was about lobbyist. That does not bolster your assertion that this is a major topic that the US population cares about. The polls you posted does not cite it as a major concern for Americans either.
|
I mean, is a politicians staff and team not an unelected group of individuals who have a lot of influence over that politician?
|
Do you think the question made it clear that the term "secretive" was meant in a way distinct from the idea of handling classified information or the standard non-disclosure of an employee's day to day activities? If so how?
Do you think the question made it clear that "manipulation" was meant in a way distinct from the intended public duties of the job? If so how?
|
On March 21 2018 06:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I mean, is a politicians staff and team not an unelected group of individuals who have a lot of influence over that politician?
I would argue that is true. But I also don’t think it is a problem in a representative democracy. The concept of the deep state is much more of an X-files style bogyman that controls the US government, but we never get to see their faces. It’s not like the concept gets any more specific than military generals and unelected bureaucrats. Much like Cake, the Deep State is a lie.
|
Thousands have died, and millions have been affected with cholera, in the three-year war in Yemen in part because of America’s support for Saudi Arabia’s war. On Tuesday, the Senate allowed that support to continue.
That’s because a bipartisan effort to end US involvement in the war in Yemen failed in a close Senate vote on Tuesday afternoon. But the vote demonstrated growing pushback on President Donald Trump’s coziness with Riyadh, which leads the coalition in the Yemen war. That same day, the president met with Saudi Arabia’s leader, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, who was visiting Washington during a country-wide tour.
A disparate group of senators — Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Chris Murphy (D-CT) — drafted and introduced the resolution to stop America’s support for the bloodshed. “This is one of the great humanitarian disasters of our time,” Sanders told Vox in an interview last week.
But the GOP-controlled Senate voted to table — that is, kill — the resolution that says America shouldn’t assist Saudi Arabia in its three-year fight against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. By a 55-44 margin, a majority of Republicans and some Democrats effectively said the US can still help Riyadh, by refueling its planes and providing intelligence in the Saudi’s brutal air campaign.
Supporters of the resolution claimed it would immediately end America’s involvement in the war; critics said it wouldn’t.
So far, the conflict has claimed more than 13,500 lives — many of them in airstrikes. Roughly 20 million Yemenis need humanitarian assistance to meet basic needs — including food and water — out of a prewar population of 28 million, and nearly 1 million people are suffering from cholera. However, conditions are so bad there that it is hard to have a reliable tally of any of these measures, which means the situation could be much, much worse.
Part of the reason it’s so hard to navigate Yemen is Riyadh’s relentless bombing campaign. The Saudi military has conducted more than 145,000 missions in Yemen over the past three years. A Saudi general told the Wall Street Journal that about 100,000 of those were combat missions, conducting about 300 missions per day. One human rights group counted around 16,000 Saudi airstrikes in total, killing thousands of civilians in total.
During a blockade last year, Saudi Arabia put various restrictions on Yemen’s airspace and seaports, which led to the deaths of more than 5,000 civilians, more than 20 percent of whom were children.
Lee, one of the measure’s co-sponsors, told me the push to pass the resolution was also to make a statement about how America goes to war. “We have a set of processes that have to be followed,” he said, noting that Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. “If advocates for this war within our government are confident that this is that important to America’s national security interest, then they should bring forward those arguments and ask for an authorization,” he continued. “But without that, we have no business getting involved in someone else’s civil war.”
The Trump administration lobbied to defeat the measure. Last week, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis sent a letter to Congress requesting that lawmakers not restrict America’s support for Riyadh’s military. He claimed that stopping US assistance “could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis — all of which would further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis.”
This isn’t the first time Congress has tried to stand up to the president on America’s involvement in Yemen. Last November, the House of Representatives passed a similar resolution to the Senate version. That’s because, by a wide 366-30 margin, the House believed the US is only authorized to fight terrorist groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda. Lawmakers said the US doesn’t have authorization to fight the Houthis.
Scott Paul, a Yemen expert at the humanitarian group Oxfam America, was unhappy with the news, telling me that “today should have been the day that the Senate moved to end US involvement in this catastrophe.” But Paul noted that some senators may have voted against the measure because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee may soon take up the issue. “We expect Congress to take decisive action soon,” he said.
But Tuesday’s vote was relatively close, and that is important on its own. It’s even more noteworthy because on Tuesday, Trump welcomed Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and the driving force behind the Yemen war to the White House to discuss the burgeoning relationship and arms sales.
Trump had previously issued statements asking Saudi Arabia to cease violating human rights in Yemen. But in his two public statements alongside MBS, as the crown prince is widely known, at the White House, Trump didn’t mention the word “Yemen” once.
Source
|
On March 21 2018 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2018 05:58 Gorsameth wrote:
How does requiring pregnant women to be informed of all the medical options available to them violate the first amendment?
How does forcing non medical facilities to clear state that they are not medical facilities violate the first amendment?
This reads completely crazy, is misinformation patients about medical options protected by the right to free speech? Oo. Even government interference on behalf of the consumer is still government interference, and must be shot down with bolts of holy fire. It's up to the people and businesses themselves to make choices that are in everyone's best interests. I think it's sad that we're not yet beyond the point where I have to indicate my sarcasm in the above.
The best way I have heard it put is by framing it in terms of bullies.
Liberals want Federal bullies to protect the individual rights of local minorities against Local bullies. Think Civil Rights Act coming in and stomping all over the local sheriff that wants to run an apartheid scheme. Or to have a federal worker safety bully organization that hassles capitalists into having safety standards on the job.
Conservatives want the federal government weak so that local bullies have their powers of coercion over the weak maximized. They call this individual rights. Think your boss being able to fire you for no reason. Or workers being prohibited or regulated out of ever unionizing. Or local religious leaders being able to chase abortion providers out of town.
Both sides are for individual rights, but liberals want to use the federal government to protect the individual rights of the weak, whereas conservatives want the federal government stop interfering with the individual rights of local bullies.
|
On March 21 2018 06:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2018 04:45 ChristianS wrote:
My sister who works at state department was joking she wants to get a shirt that says "I am the Deep State." I'm quite confident she has never leaked confidential information or engaged in any illicit efforts to undermine the elected government. On the other hand, a lot of her work is confidential and she definitely plays a role in implementing national (especially foreign) policy.
If asked that question, I think I'd have to answer that yes, I do think there are a bunch of unelected officials, both military and civilian, that have a lot of influence on national policy. I don't think they're, like, a secret society or cabal, but that's not what the question asked. Well, that’s not a question. Maybe it’s your own collage of questions like the following: As it stands right now, do you think that unelected or appointed officials in the federal government have too much influence in determining federal policy or is there the right balance of influence between elected and unelected officials? The term Deep State refers to the possible existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy. Do you think this type of Deep State in the federal government definitely exists, probably exists, probably does not exist, or definitely does not exist? The manipulation in secret was very much a part of the question. The very big topic in America today is if a group or groupings operate for their own personal and political reasons instead of at the behest and direction of elected leaders. So the question correctly put out there that they do so without the approval of the elected top level (and maybe extended to cabinet)
But the point is that the question could potentially confuse respondents, making the data suspect. "In secret" could apply to anything confidential, and "manipulate national policy" could apply to any activity that affects policy, illicit or otherwise. For polling purposes you should have absolutely clear operational definitions, not rely on the participant to fill in their own definition of "secret" or "manipulate."
|
On March 21 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2018 06:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
The crux of the matter seems to be if it's reasonable to require non-medical facilities to state that they are non-medical facilities. I certainly think it is. But like most California laws, they shoot the moon and get challenged because of it. If they had limited it to “Yo, we are not a medical facility, we cannot provide medical advice,” I doubt this case would have had legs.
And yet like Planned parenthood having a super PAC I think thats the point of why they made it go over the line. Forceing the issue to go to court removes the leeway that other states would have on making likewise laws and would force the courts to make a federal law level decision on the issue.
Like I think we can agree that its a little crazy but they intended it to be crazy beacuse of the crazy system means that the issue isn't crazy at the end. Crazy means to ensure a non crazy ends. California trying to get federal laws passed through the court system.
|
On March 21 2018 06:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2018 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:On March 21 2018 05:58 Gorsameth wrote:
How does requiring pregnant women to be informed of all the medical options available to them violate the first amendment?
How does forcing non medical facilities to clear state that they are not medical facilities violate the first amendment?
This reads completely crazy, is misinformation patients about medical options protected by the right to free speech? Oo. Even government interference on behalf of the consumer is still government interference, and must be shot down with bolts of holy fire. It's up to the people and businesses themselves to make choices that are in everyone's best interests. I think it's sad that we're not yet beyond the point where I have to indicate my sarcasm in the above. The best way I have heard it put is by framing it in terms of bullies. Liberals want Federal bullies to protect the individual rights of local minorities against Local bullies. Think Civil Rights Act coming in and stomping all over the local sheriff that wants to run an apartheid scheme. Or to have a federal worker safety bully organization that hassles capitalists into having safety standards on the job. Conservatives want the federal government weak so that local bullies have their powers of coercion over the weak maximized. They call this individual rights. Think your boss being able to fire you for no reason. Or workers being prohibited or regulated out of ever unionizing. Or local religious leaders being able to chase abortion providers out of town. Both sides are for individual rights, but liberals want to use the federal government to protect the individual rights of the weak, whereas conservatives want the federal government stop interfering with the individual rights of local bullies.
That's a pretty good framing. A more succinct one that I'm fond of is "In a society that has progressed beyond using torches and pitchforks for redress of grievances, government is how individually powerless people leverage their greater numbers to protect themselves from powerful individuals."
Mixing that with your framing, Republicans want the federal government to be like a king that sends the national army to aid a local lord against a peasant uprising.
|
5930 Posts
On March 21 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2018 06:27 Danglars wrote:On March 21 2018 06:24 Plansix wrote:On March 21 2018 06:17 Danglars wrote:On March 21 2018 04:45 ChristianS wrote:
My sister who works at state department was joking she wants to get a shirt that says "I am the Deep State." I'm quite confident she has never leaked confidential information or engaged in any illicit efforts to undermine the elected government. On the other hand, a lot of her work is confidential and she definitely plays a role in implementing national (especially foreign) policy.
If asked that question, I think I'd have to answer that yes, I do think there are a bunch of unelected officials, both military and civilian, that have a lot of influence on national policy. I don't think they're, like, a secret society or cabal, but that's not what the question asked. Well, that’s not a question. Maybe it’s your own collage of questions like the following: As it stands right now, do you think that unelected or appointed officials in the federal government have too much influence in determining federal policy or is there the right balance of influence between elected and unelected officials? The term Deep State refers to the possible existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy. Do you think this type of Deep State in the federal government definitely exists, probably exists, probably does not exist, or definitely does not exist? The manipulation in secret was very much a part of the question. The very big topic in America today is if a group or groupings operate for their own personal and political reasons instead of at the behest and direction of elected leaders. So the question correctly put out there that they do so without the approval of the elected top level (and maybe extended to cabinet) Can you please explain how it is a very big topic in the America today when over 60% of the people in the poll had no idea the Deep State was? You seem to be asserting a very charitable reading of the poll. The term itself is newish and had/has a very conspiratorial vibe. The thought that power in Washington is wielded very much by an elite not representative of voting Americans figures heavily in the 2016 election. Consider the relation to “drain the swamp” campaign message. The “Drain the Swamp” campaign message is like a rorschach test, people see what they want. I could make a compelling argument that it was about lobbyist. That does not bolster your assertion that this is a major topic that the US population cares about. The polls you posted does not cite it as a major concern for Americans either.
Yeah, the recent interviews and that Channel 4 piece on Cambridge Analytica actually goes into a lot of Trump's policy ideas and slogans. Things like Drain the Swamp, Lock Her Up and Build The Wall were developed via big data analytics because they generated strong responses from specific demographics regardless of context.
Things like Lock Her Up and Build The Wall doesn't actually have to end up in the locking up of Hillary Clinton and the building of an actual wall. They found out that the symbolism behind these slogans are enough.
|
On March 21 2018 07:17 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On March 21 2018 06:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
The crux of the matter seems to be if it's reasonable to require non-medical facilities to state that they are non-medical facilities. I certainly think it is. But like most California laws, they shoot the moon and get challenged because of it. If they had limited it to “Yo, we are not a medical facility, we cannot provide medical advice,” I doubt this case would have had legs. And yet like Planned parenthood having a super PAC I think thats the point of why they made it go over the line. Forceing the issue to go to court removes the leeway that other states would have on making likewise laws and would force the courts to make a federal law level decision on the issue. Like I think we can agree that its a little crazy but they intended it to be crazy beacuse of the crazy system means that the issue isn't crazy at the end. Crazy means to ensure a non crazy ends. California trying to get federal laws passed through the court system.
Trying to intact nation wide change through court rulings is a bipartisan practice. Half of the energy around conservatism seems to be about stacking the federal courts with hyper conservative judges, rather than legislating. The CA law is at least upfront about its intent and what it is trying to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
