|
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 October 12 2018 05:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Gay marriage can't be a state to state thing. It's a Federally recognized status which means that all states would have to recognize the marriages of other states. Also it's a fundamental right so why would you even want some states to be allowed to not recognize it. And marriage also provides the rights to inherit and guardianship over children. Like, what the hell to gay parents do when one state doesn’t accept that they are parent?
Leaving it to the states is generally a bad idea for most social policies because many states are ass backwards, bigoted, and would blatantly discriminate against women and minorities if they could get away with it.
Gay marriage is the perfect example.
Side note: talking about leaving it to the states, Kansas's gubernatorial GOP candidate is hilarious. He tries to explain away the abject failure of Kansas's attempt at conservative economic policy by saying, "they didn't REALLY commit to a true conservative economic policy!"
What a fucking joke. And conservatives try to call out liberals for "no true Scotsman" fallacies concerning economics...
|
On October 12 2018 05:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 00:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions... Sorry to be responding late, In an ideal case, which of these would be decided by a court and which of these would be decided by congress/senate? Healthcare Immigration Gay marriage Abortion In an ideal case, do you prefer those issues are solved by a court, or solved by elected officials? My main criticism of the court isn't even because of the court. My main criticism is that deference to the supreme court allows for our shitbag senators and congressmen to hide behind court rulings. When our elected officials have less of a voting record, they are less accountable. When everything goes to the supreme court, politicians are less accountable. We aren't allowing our democracy to properly function when we defer to the courts with every single major issue. Furthermore, the idea of lifelong appointment is inherently flawed as it pertains to law. The idea that it prevents partisanship is shot 6 times in the head by just reviewing the last 10 years. We can find other methods of making the court more neutral. The current system is not good and I would be very surprised if you think the supreme court is functioning in a healthy way. We aren't stuck with the current system. Nothing about our laws and institutions is defined by god or any other greater than human being. This is an entirely man-made system that is born with all the same flaws as the people who crafted it. It is important to recognize that in every single other situation in life, we can look back at decisions made 80 years ago and think "yeah, but obviously we know a lot more now and would not do that today". The same is also true of American law and institutions. We didn't just magically come up with the most slam dunk system you could ever imagine our first try. Our system is bad and it shouldn't be surprising. It is super old and old ideas are generally improved on over time. It is how every single thing in the world works. healthcare: it is complicated, but it should be worked out by legislative bodies. immigration: if you look at us history, for the large majority of it the courts were loath to get involved here. the constitution gives Congress power and the courts generally have deferred to Congress on what rules to make and to the executive on how he enforces them. gay marriage: the states abortion: the states what needs to happen is for Congress to exercise it's own power and start to rein in the courts. then it wont matter as much who is there. this is obviously a hard problem, but I hope some of our left friends see the supreme court they now face and decide they like restraint and Congress again. and I sincerely hope a newly conservative supreme court, instead of going activist, starts to restrain itself and the courts below it. in that case a 5-4 might actually incentivize this movement. it remains to be seen. some libertarians, especially, favor a more active court.
I don't see how either abortion or gay rights should be down to the states. And I don't see why it should be simplified to just 'marriage'. States rights arguments on this avenue almost always come down to 'we want to treat x group like shit, please make it easier for us'.
|
On October 12 2018 05:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 05:11 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2018 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Gay marriage can't be a state to state thing. It's a Federally recognized status which means that all states would have to recognize the marriages of other states. Also it's a fundamental right so why would you even want some states to be allowed to not recognize it. And marriage also provides the rights to inherit and guardianship over children. Like, what the hell to gay parents do when one state doesn’t accept that they are parent? Leaving it to the states is generally a bad idea for most social policies because many states are ass backwards, bigoted, and would blatantly discriminate against women and minorities if they could get away with it. Gay marriage is the perfect example. Side note: talking about leaving it to the states, Kansas's gubernatorial GOP candidate is hilarious. He tries to explain away the abject failure of Kansas's attempt at conservative economic policy by saying, "they didn't REALLY commit to a true conservative economic policy!" What a fucking joke. And conservatives try to call out liberals for "no true Scotsman" fallacies concerning economics...
Given the extent to which anti-abortion positions operate as proxies for a refusal to fund accessible sexual and reproductive healthcare, abortion is a good example too. It is no coincidence that the populations most affected by the closure of abortion facilities tend to be poor minorities.
|
ah yes, that was the rationale for the the decision. lol
there were questions to be worked out and federal courts do work out state fights, but on the whole the question wasnt obviously made for SCOTUS.. besides, striking down things like DOMA created some of the problems you guys are now appealing to, which is convenient. No matter, all I had time for was to answer Mohdoo's question.
obergafell is done and will never be reversed, but what really needs watching now are the other three things Mohsoo mentioned.
also to say that hiding behind the courts happened when the tea party got into power... lol. I will never fail to be wondered by Plansix's ability to make literally every bad thing somehow thr fault of Republicans.
|
The question of what the Constitution does and doesn't protect in terms of fundamental rights is absolutely the stuff of the judiciary, formalistic, immoral FedSoc-borne assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
|
On October 12 2018 05:25 Introvert wrote:
ah yes, that was the rationale for the the decision. lol
there were questions to be worked out and federal courts do work out state fights, but on the whole the question wasnt obviously made for SCOTUS.. besides, striking down things like DOMA created some of the problems you guys are now appealing to, which is convenient. No matter, all I had time for was to answer Mohdoo's question.
obergafell is done and will never be reversed, but what really needs watching now are the other three things Mohsoo mentioned.
also to say that hiding behind the courts happened when the tea party got into power... lol. I will never fail to be wondered by Plansix's ability to make literally every bad thing somehow thr fault of Republicans.
I can blame the Democrats for a lot of shit too. The re-authorizing patriots act without an ounce of push back for example. And the state of Illinois all the fault of centrist democrats, through and through. Fuck, even Rhode Island is overflowing with corrupt, racist centrist democrats.
But when it comes to the oppression of gays, denying women’s health rights and gross voter suppression that is all the Republicans. Everyone should just own their bullshit.
Edit: oh yeah, recently Obama and the Democrats were happy to use Facebook and other parts of the internet to assist in their 2008 win, and never thought to regulate those companies. Instead they just lets them grown into the nightmares we are dealting with today.
|
On October 12 2018 05:25 Introvert wrote:
ah yes, that was the rationale for the the decision. lol
there were questions to be worked out and federal courts do work out state fights, but on the whole the question wasnt obviously made for SCOTUS.. besides, striking down things like DOMA created some of the problems you guys are now appealing to, which is convenient. No matter, all I had time for was to answer Mohdoo's question.
obergafell is done and will never be reversed, but what really needs watching now are the other three things Mohsoo mentioned.
also to say that hiding behind the courts happened when the tea party got into power... lol. I will never fail to be wondered by Plansix's ability to make literally every bad thing somehow thr fault of Republicans. That wasn't Plansix, that was me. And Republicans have held Congress for 8 years, its hard not to blame them for Congress doing nothing while they control it.
|
I think the problems with the Supreme court would be a lot less explicit if their rulings were made more explicit. If instead of making sweeping precedent and opinions on issues that more often then not inherently recreate the laws rather the rulings simple confirm or disqualify the laws that are being challenged. The power of legislating would be again the sole purview of the Congress and the power of what follows the holy writ be the purview of the supreme court.
I don't think the supreme court should be considered the same as the lower level courts. If a case needs to be brought before the highest authority it should be only the most serious and have no dispute on their intentions.
|
SCOTUS is a poor policymaker in general. When they find parts of policies unconstitutional that result in clear holes that the original lawmakers didn't built redundancies into (the ACA only supplying subsidies for individuals above the Medicaid expansion FPL requirement is the prime recent example) it can result in shattered and ineffectual policy, particularly because of time delays and political rubberbanding and even though the spirit of the law clearly supports subsidies for people that fall between the current Medicaid requirements and the expanded ones.
This never came into their ruling because they aren't policymakers (even to the laughable extent the current Congress is).
But the solution is for Congress to fix these holes-and the current Congress loves letting these holes tear at themselves.
|
And let’s not forget the court gutting the voters rights act. An amazing idea that has resulted in the governor of Georgia changing the voting rules while running for re-election.
|
On October 12 2018 06:16 Plansix wrote:
And let’s not forget the court gutting the voters rights act. An amazing idea that has resulted in the governor of Georgia changing the voting rules while running for re-election.
No, thats the sec of state changing the rules while he runs for governor. The guy who has to validate the election isnt stepping aside for the election he is running in... jesus fucking christ Georgia
|
*Healthcare should be decided by the states where possible, by the Congress where necessary.
*Immigration law should obviously be decided solely by the Congress with the President receiving relatively broad discretion to limit immigration temporarily. He should have absolutely no discretion whatsoever the other way though. Limiting immigration for a temporary period of time could potentially be necessary in some kind of emergency situation, it is pretty difficult to imagine where we would have an emergency need to bring people in as opposed to keeping them out.
*The definition of marriage should have been in the Constitution. Since that is not an option right now, it should be left up to the Congress.
*Abortion should have been determined by Constitutional Amendment. Since that is not an option right now, it should be left up to the Congress.
Repeal the 17th Amendment and you'll solve a lot of problems, including the hyper-partisan fighting over the Supreme Court.
|
On October 11 2018 19:18 Plansix wrote:
Testimony under oath is evidence. Always has been.
The testimony of the accuser is not exactly "evidence" in the common sense of the word. It carries exactly as much weight as the testimony of the accused.
|
That's absolutely untrue, the evidentiary weight assigned testimony, be it from the accused, the accuser, or a witness, varies depending on a host of factors attendant to the act of giving testimony itself. Even in a deposition, where facts are technically not being tried, the credibility and weight given testimony varies widely.
|
On October 12 2018 15:11 ReditusSum wrote:
*Healthcare should be decided by the states where possible, by the Congress where necessary.
*Immigration law should obviously be decided solely by the Congress with the President receiving relatively broad discretion to limit immigration temporarily. He should have absolutely no discretion whatsoever the other way though. Limiting immigration for a temporary period of time could potentially be necessary in some kind of emergency situation, it is pretty difficult to imagine where we would have an emergency need to bring people in as opposed to keeping them out.
*The definition of marriage should have been in the Constitution. Since that is not an option right now, it should be left up to the Congress.
*Abortion should have been determined by Constitutional Amendment. Since that is not an option right now, it should be left up to the Congress.
Repeal the 17th Amendment and you'll solve a lot of problems, including the hyper-partisan fighting over the Supreme Court.
* That seems a bureaucratic nightmare for between-state travel. Don't some people live in one state and work in another?
* Short of some sort of very specific localised plague that killed half of the population of the States... no, it's hard to come up with a scenario where you'd be desperate for immigration.
* Holy hell, can you imagine how backwards America would be if they'd defined marriage as 'between a consenting white male and female' in the constitution?
I've never heard a statement that more succinctly sums up the problem with the nigh-worship of that document than the statement you just made.
* Similar to above; repealing Roe vs Wade and outlawing abortion - which the VP, at least, wants to do - would be utterly devastating on the cultural level, and relegate the US to being a backwater embarrassment for the west that happens to be really rich.
On October 12 2018 04:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 03:42 farvacola wrote:
Without looking into the specifics, that seems like a recipe for Brexit 2.0, only much, much worse. whats so bad about brexit? lets just assume that yes there will be a brief period of economic cost to the split. the question is whether the long-term equilibrium is favorable over maintainig the status quo. we can agree, i think, that the euro as a whole presents long-term equilibrium problems for the EU which does not have the latitude the US has to prop up less economically productive states with monetary policies.
Because we Leeroy Jenkins'd it. A vote was made on a non-existent policy platform promoted by people who thought that the leave vote wouldn't come close to succeed and made promises the government couldn't possibly ever fulfil.
If we come out of Brexit better than before it'll be by hard work and good luck, and nothing else. Everyone - literally everyone - who is involved in the process thinks it's looking bad, to the point the Tories have now decided to just walk away from the table without even settling up a trade deal. Even if it works out okay in the end, this isn't a win for the Brexiteers. it was still the most reckless, idiotic political decision our country's made in the last century. It's like pressing a giant button that says 'NUKE BRITAIN' and cheering because it didn't.
The vote came at least two years early, and was acted on four years early. If they really did want to consider it binding, they should have spent years making detailed plans and projections and put them to the public to vote on. Instead they just said 'EVERYTHING WILL BE MAGICAL AND PERFECT AND oh shit...'.
|
This story about the Washington post reporter is getting more and more embarrassing. The state department straight up doesn’t know what is going on and we are getting our information from every other source by our own government.
|
The whole obsession with states rights is a scam. It's the only way minority political groups that own majorities in their state legislatures can continue the tyranny of the minority.
|
On October 12 2018 21:49 Plansix wrote:This story about the Washington post reporter is getting more and more embarrassing. The state department straight up doesn’t know what is going on and we are getting our information from every other source by our own government. https://twitter.com/RobertMaguire_/status/1050374743784910848
lmao, just because twitter cut off the image, after he takes the question the transcript reads ‘One more, let’s go to Fox.’ guess he wanted some easier questions. that’s good stuff.
|
On October 12 2018 22:42 brian wrote:lmao, just because twitter cut off the image, after he takes the question the transcript reads ‘One more, let’s go to Fox.’ guess he wanted some easier questions. that’s good stuff.
This and the quote from Trump: “He wasn’t an American citizen,” is really troubling. Some business deals with the Princes might be influencing Trump’s opinions on this topic. Thinking we should all avoid countries that Trump has business dealings with.
|
So now that Turkey is claiming to have definitive proof of SA involvement, where does this leave us?
SA assassinated a US journalist. Am I wrong in thinking this is a giant deal? It feels like a giant deal. I am not sure what the right response here is, but at the very least we should not be selling weapons to SA. Does anyone disagree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
