TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#263476: Dec 3rd 2018 at 8:41:38 PM

...that’s a vague and dim excuse to keep information away from the public for our own supposed good.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#263477: Dec 3rd 2018 at 8:45:36 PM

Honest question: How do you make the CIA accountable when the nature of its job requires that it operate heavily in the black? Assets and operations in use, and assets afterward, need to be protected; how can we ensure the protection of the secrets that need to be protected while ensuring accountability for illegal activity?

(Also, how fast can we have the entire NSA wrapped in barbed wire and shot into the sun?)

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#263478: Dec 3rd 2018 at 8:52:43 PM

There has to be a balance between the public right to know and an individual’s right to remain anonymous. Some people do things for intelligence agencies on the condition of anonymity, breaking those agreed upon conditions isn’t doing right by them.

As for keeping such agencies accountable, they have to be accountable via intermediaries. So that means the publicly know agency leaders, the elected heads of government and oversight committees composed of legilstlators.

Intelligence agencies rarely actully go off on their own, they have oversight and accountability, but the people they are accountable to either don’t mind what is being done or don’t care enough to take a proper look.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#263479: Dec 3rd 2018 at 8:53:18 PM

[up][up] For the former, release anything that doesn't give away active field agents immediately. That includes all the illegal stuff, too. We shouldn't sweep all these things under the rug forever.

For the latter, as soon as we can get NASA a proper budget.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Dec 3rd 2018 at 11:54:07 AM

The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#263480: Dec 3rd 2018 at 9:04:39 PM

Why A Fringe Idea About The Supreme Court Is Taking Over The Left

I'm sure most of you could figure out just by the title it's about court-packing, but other things to make things more fair/in our favor (depending on how you like to think about it) are mentioned.

Soban Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
#263481: Dec 3rd 2018 at 9:42:52 PM

What I don't like about court packing is that if we do it because we don't like the makeup of the supreme court, they can do it too. It helps that nine is a good number, it's odd and less than thirteen which means that the group has a much easier time coming to a single consensus. I think we could still get good unanimous results up to thirteen, but more then that is just asking for trouble. Consider a court made up of say 35 Justices. I doubt we would ever see any solid unanimity from them. Whereas currently, a majority of cases are Unanimous. I think that Seven would probably be a better number than nine.

I think that making Puerto Rico a state would be a good idea. It should have been a state a long time ago.

I'm not sure that expanding membership in the House of Representatives would be effective. We already have over four hundred and I'm not sure that a significantly larger number would get better outcomes.

I think that term limits are a possible solution, but I also think that those term limits should probably also be long, twenty years at the shortest. Thirty or forty years would be better. Although I wouldn't mind that counter starting from the time that they are first appointed to the federal court system, not from appointment to the supreme court. Although this might lead to them being appointed from outside the federal court system. I think saying that a supreme court judge must be a federal judge with at least ten years of tenure might work.

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#263482: Dec 3rd 2018 at 9:49:54 PM

I still feel a combination of term limits and impeaching one particular justice who "likes beer" would be the best way forward. I get the distinct sense that we'd be opening Pandora's box if we tried ramming through more justices.

The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#263483: Dec 3rd 2018 at 10:03:22 PM

Republicans can already court pack, the only reason they haven’t is because they don’t need to.

I mean come on, if the Dems somehow get a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court and the Republicans then win back control of government, do you honestly think they won’t pack the court?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#263484: Dec 3rd 2018 at 10:10:22 PM

[up] Oh, undoubtedly. Let them take the fall first, and we can then pack it to our hearts content. But so long as there are other options on the table, we need not go for the most blatant of the "we're taking the court back now thanks" routes.

Just cause they'll do it doesn't mean that we must.

[down] If they're going to try to pack the court regardless, might as well make them deal with the negative consequences, right?

Edited by AzurePaladin on Dec 3rd 2018 at 1:31:09 PM

The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#263485: Dec 3rd 2018 at 10:21:29 PM

Republicans already made the first move by putting two illegitimate justices on the court (more if you count Bush’s first term appointees), they shouldn’t be allowed to make the second and third moves as well.

The court is in a very dangerous place right now, all it would take is a key governor or two to refuse to recognise its legitimacy and chaos would break out.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
CookingCat Since: Jul, 2018
#263486: Dec 3rd 2018 at 11:15:47 PM

Apparently Nafta 2.0/USMCA has the copyright bullshit from SOPA and TPP in it...

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#263487: Dec 3rd 2018 at 11:38:30 PM

Well, we have intelligence committees for the very reason of holding people in the CIA accountable.

It's just sometimes they're complete assholes who have the question of, "Why are you not killing more communist peasants? Why aren't you working to replace dictator X so we can have more oil?"

They have done some truly amazing work but it is very much an agency whose agenda and methodology changes with the Presidency.

And to quote them, "Our failures are infamous, our successes unknown."

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Dec 3rd 2018 at 11:40:14 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#263488: Dec 4th 2018 at 12:24:59 AM

It is worth noting that the government isn't necessarily just keeping secrets from us-it also is keeping them secret from our enemies. Knowing is half the battle, and making sure your enemy doesn't know is the other half. And you everything the general public knows, the enemy does too.

With WWII it probably is to protect assets and to not let people know certain methods the government might still use, or at the very least-doesn't want any old joe to know how to use.

Another example of that would the Atomic Bomb. Little Boy and Fat Man are obsolete, but you also don't want to release instruction manuals on how to build nukes as general principle.

Leviticus 19:34
KnightofLsama Since: Sep, 2010
#263489: Dec 4th 2018 at 1:31:38 AM

... Why are they still classified even 60+ years after the fact?
I don't know about the US but I'm pretty sure that the UK has some files from the SOE and the various MI branches that were set to be declassified only 75 and 100 years after the war

Zarastro Since: Sep, 2010
#263490: Dec 4th 2018 at 1:37:38 AM

The UK had also files classified about submarine warfare, and more specifically the use of of certain methods that were technically war crimes. Historians know those files exist (often from German files which are all declassified as part of an agreement withe FRG) but they can not access them.

I guess a legitimate fear about declassifying certain files is that you might inadvertedly reveal dangerous information. For example nearly all the files of the GDR are available for historians. Something NATO is not happy about, because as it turned out the Warsaw Pact had a far better understanding of NATO strategies and supply lines than previously thought (thanks to several high-ranking moles within NATO) and thus information that are still classified in other files are now available.

Edited by Zarastro on Dec 4th 2018 at 10:41:19 AM

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#263491: Dec 4th 2018 at 2:58:37 AM

I remember when it came out about all those maps the Soviets had of various cities in the US and they were terrifying detailed.

Stuff like the number of bricks in buildings and the height of street curbs and other stuff that not even local city planners knew or had taken information on.

Oh really when?
math792d Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#263492: Dec 4th 2018 at 3:28:55 AM

The problems of the CIA are the problems of the government behind them. To fix the CIA, you just need to get the people who want to use it to build an American Empire.

And have those people shot as war criminals.

Why would you want to go after the people who want to build an American Empire when America already is an empire?

I mean, you could argue that you need to go for the people who wanted to make the transition from indirect imperialism to direct imperialism, but the US'd never do that. They'd have to go after people with money.

Edited by math792d on Dec 4th 2018 at 12:32:20 PM

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#263493: Dec 4th 2018 at 5:51:38 AM

Manafort Tried to Broker Deal With Ecuador to Hand Assange Over to U.S.

WASHINGTON — In mid-May 2017, Paul Manafort, facing intensifying pressure to settle debts and pay mounting legal bills, flew to Ecuador to offer his services to a potentially lucrative new client — the country’s incoming president, Lenín Moreno.

Mr. Manafort made the trip mainly to see if he could broker a deal under which China would invest in Ecuador’s power system, possibly yielding a fat commission for Mr. Manafort.

But the talks turned to a diplomatic sticking point between the United States and Ecuador: the fate of the Wiki Leaks founder Julian Assange.

In at least two meetings with Mr. Manafort, Mr. Moreno and his aides discussed their desire to rid themselves of Mr. Assange, who has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, in exchange for concessions like debt relief from the United States, according to three people familiar with the talks, the details of which have not been previously reported.

They said Mr. Manafort suggested he could help negotiate a deal for the handover of Mr. Assange to the United States, which has long investigated Mr. Assange for the disclosure of secret documents and which later filed charges against him that have not yet been made public.

Within a couple of days of Mr. Manafort’s final meeting in Quito, Robert S. Mueller III was appointed as the special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters, and it quickly became clear that Mr. Manafort was a primary target. His talks with Ecuador ended without any deals.

There is no evidence that Mr. Manafort was working with — or even briefing — President Trump or other administration officials on his discussions with the Ecuadoreans about Mr. Assange. Nor is there any evidence that his brief involvement in the talks was motivated by concerns about the role that Mr. Assange and Wiki Leaks played in facilitating the Russian effort to help Mr. Trump in the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation into possible coordination between Mr. Assange and Mr. Trump’s associates, which has become a focus for Mr. Mueller.

Mr. Manafort and Wiki Leaks have both denied a recent report in The Guardian that Mr. Manafort visited Mr. Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London in 2013, 2015 and 2016.

But the revelations about Mr. Manafort’s discussions in 2017 about Mr. Assange in Quito underscore how his self-styled role as an international influence broker intersected with the questions surrounding the Trump campaign.

And the episode shows how after Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Manafort sought to cash in on his brief tenure as Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman even as investigators were closing in.

The Ecuadoreans continued to explore the possibility of Chinese investment, but with the United States Justice Department and intelligence agencies stepping up their pursuit of Mr. Assange and Wiki Leaks, Mr. Moreno’s team increasingly looked to resolve their Assange problem by turning to Russia.

In the months after Mr. Moreno took office, the Ecuadorean government granted citizenship to Mr. Assange and secretly pursued a plan to provide him a diplomatic post in Russia as a way to free him from confinement in the embassy in London. (That plan was ultimately dropped in the face of opposition from British authorities, who have said they will arrest Mr. Assange if he leaves the embassy.)

Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Mr. Manafort, said that it was Mr. Moreno — not Mr. Manafort — who broached the issue of Mr. Assange and “his desire to remove Julian Assange from Ecuador’s embassy.” Mr. Manafort “listened but made no promises as this was ancillary to the purpose of the meeting,” said Mr. Maloni, adding, “There was no mention of Russia at the meeting.”

Late last year, Mr. Mueller’s team charged Mr. Manafort with a host of lobbying, money laundering and tax violations in connection with his consulting work for Russia-aligned interests in Ukraine before the 2016 election. Mr. Manafort was convicted of some of the crimes and pleaded guilty to others as part of an agreement to cooperate with prosecutors. But prosecutors said last week that he violated the deal by repeatedly lying to them. Mr. Manafort remains in solitary confinement in a federal detention center in Alexandria, Va., waiting for a judge to set a sentencing date.

The trip to Ecuador was part of a whirlwind world tour that represented the last gasps of Mr. Manafort’s once lucrative career.

In those final months, Mr. Manafort pitched officials from a range of governments facing a variety of challenges, from Puerto Rico to Ecuador to Iraqi Kurdistan to the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Manafort, who served on the board of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation in the Reagan administration, presented himself as a liaison to the new Trump administration and, in some cases, as a broker for arranging investments from a fund associated with the state-owned China Development Bank.

In Quito, he told Mr. Moreno’s team that he could arrange a major cash infusion from the Chinese fund in the Ecuadorean electric utility, and could ease any potential concerns from the Trump administration about such an investment, according to people involved in arranging the meetings.

The week after the Quito trip, Mr. Manafort traveled to Hong Kong to meet with representatives from the China Development Bank’s fund to discuss the possible investment in Ecuador, as well as a proposal being pushed by Mr. Manafort to buy Puerto Rico’s bond debt, possibly in exchange for ownership of the island’s electric utility

In both cases, Mr. Manafort assured the Chinese he could win support from Washington, despite Mr. Trump’s oft-expressed qualms about China.

Brokering a deal to bring Mr. Assange to the United States could have been even more complicated. Not only had Mr. Assange not been charged at the time of Mr. Manafort’s trip, but Mr. Assange’s work was — and remains — a particularly fraught matter for Mr. Trump and his team.

Mr. Trump and his allies had cheered on Wiki Leaks during the campaign, when it released troves of embarrassing internal emails and documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. Since then, though, the United States intelligence agencies and Mr. Mueller’s team have made the case that the documents were stolen by Russian government agents, 12 of whom were charged by Mr. Mueller.

Mr. Assange had been pursued by Swedish prosecutors on a rape accusation from 2010. The Ecuadorean Embassy in London granted him asylum in the summer of 2012. That was under Mr. Moreno’s predecessor, Rafael Correa, whose political identity was based partly on his antagonism toward the United States. Swedish authorities abandoned their attempt to extradite him last year, which invalidated the warrant for his arrest.

During Mr. Correa’s last day in office, the Ecuadorean government wrote a letter repeating its requests to Britain to accept Mr. Assange’s asylum status. The letter asserts that United States officials had left “no doubt about their intention to persecute Mr. Assange with the aim of punishing him for alleged offenses.”

Mr. Moreno had signaled during his campaign that he would like to wash his hands of Mr. Assange. And last December, Ecuador began carrying out the plan to move Mr. Assange to Russia as a diplomat, which would require him to become an Ecuadorean citizen.

In a citizenship interview at the embassy in London, Mr. Assange explained that he wanted to become a citizen because “I’ve been welcomed here for the last five years and I feel practically Ecuadorean,” according to a written summary of the meeting.

Within 10 days, Mr. Assange was granted citizenship, according to documents released by Paola Vintimilla, an Ecuadorean lawmaker who opposes Mr. Assange’s presence in the embassy. But a subsequent effort to grant Mr. Assange diplomatic status, and the immunity that would come with it, was rejected by the British government.

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#263494: Dec 4th 2018 at 6:16:08 AM

> Stuff like the number of bricks in buildings and the height of street curbs and other stuff that not even local city planners knew or had taken information on.

Information like that had to come from somewhere,my guess is that the soviets were either very good guessing or they got someone to count all the bricks..or they asked someone who built it

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#263495: Dec 4th 2018 at 6:19:05 AM

Has anyone ever counted the bricks to see if the Soviets had not just pulled the numbers out of their arse?

"You can reply to this Message!"
TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#263496: Dec 4th 2018 at 6:19:43 AM

I know from our side, that they got them directly by either going to the government archives as the information was public (still is), asking and/or just doing the legwork. They even had maps in which they had calculated how far a gunshot could be heard when fired from certain weapons.

We have an espionage thread as well, for the general discussion of such topics.

Edited by TerminusEst on Dec 4th 2018 at 6:21:24 AM

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#263497: Dec 4th 2018 at 6:23:37 AM

After election losses in Wisconsin and Michigan, Republicans are playing one of their favorite games: when Democrats win, change the rules. Both states have a Republican legislature currently trying to limit the powers of the incoming Democratic governors, with Wisconsin also trying to essentially bypass the State Attorney General to make the position meaningless and give its power to the legislature. North Carolina tried something in 2016 when its Republican governor got voted out, and it had to be slapped down by the courts.

After being defeated at the ballot box last month, Republicans in Wisconsin and Michigan are seeking to deny Democrats full control of state government, prompting a public outcry against the attempted power grab by national figures who include potential 2020 candidates Tom Steyer and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

In a scene reminiscent of the protests against the anti-union push by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) eight years ago, demonstrators rallied at the state capitol here Monday and repeatedly spoke out during a hearing on the GOP legislative package, which was introduced late Friday and is expected to come up for a vote as early as Tuesday.

“This is a lame-duck session, and here the legislature is abusing power,” state Rep. Katrina Shankland (D) said during the hearing, calling the move “a slap in the face of every voter who voted in record turnout in the midterms.”

...

Among the more controversial parts of the plan are provisions that would limit early voting — which has helped Democrats — restrict Evers’s ability to make appointments and move the Wisconsin 2020 presidential primary to March, a shift that by lessening the turnout for the April 2020 state Supreme Court election would likely boost the chances of conservative judges.

The plan would also take away from the governor the power to withdraw the state from a lawsuit, allowing lawmakers to make the decision instead. That proposal, critics say, is aimed at ensuring Wisconsin remains part of a Republican challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission estimated Monday that moving the date of the 2020 presidential primary would cost more than $6 million. In a unanimous vote, the six members of the bipartisan panel said it would be “extraordinarily difficult” to make the move, the Wisconsin State Journal reported.

...

Republicans in both states have defended the moves as necessary to prevent Democrats from unraveling what they view as their legislative successes.

“Most of these items are things that either we never really had to kind of address because, guess what? We trusted Scott Walker and the administration to be able to manage the back-and-forth with the legislature,” Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) said Monday in an interview with conservative radio host Jay Weber. “We don’t trust Tony Evers right now in a lot of these areas.”

The GOP-led moves drew rebukes from prominent Democrats on Monday, including Steyer and Sanders, both of whom are mulling White House runs in 2020.

Sanders, who has repeatedly traveled to Wisconsin to campaign against Walker, called the efforts “disgraceful” and “pathetic” and said they “must be stopped.” Steyer, the megadonor best known for his campaign to impeach President Trump, accused Republicans of “changing the rules” rather than their ideas or their agenda after their midterm losses.

Another article:

The state governments have proposed a slate of bills that would touch everything from voting access to the judicial system. In Wisconsin, the proposals, some of which are expected to pass Tuesday, could limit Evers’s power to change policies around welfare, health care, and economic development, cut down early voting, and even allow the Republican-led legislature to hire their own lawyers to undermine the Attorney General. In Michigan, a Republican proposal would guarantee the GOP-controlled legislature the right to intervene in any legal battles involving state laws that the attorney general may be reluctant to defend.

If Republicans are successful, it’s a power grab that would seriously undermine the platform Evers campaigned, and won, on.

Two years ago, North Carolina set the precedent for this kind of move, when the Republican-controlled legislature stripped then-incoming Democrat Roy Cooper’s power over Cabinet appointments, made the state’s judicial system more partisan and ensured that the state’s board of elections would be controlled by Republicans in election years. Cooper has been in legal fights over the changes since.

In the span of four days, Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature is trying to overhaul the powers of the governor. Last Friday, Republican state lawmakers unveiled a 141-page package of bills that would give Republicans power over key gubernatorial decisions, weaken the role of the attorney general, as well as proposals to limit voter turnout.

“Wisconsin law, written by the legislature and signed into law by a governor, should not be erased by the potential political maneuvering of the executive branch,” Speaker of the Assembly Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said in a joint statement.

They plan on voting on some of these bills on Tuesday, after only one day of hearings.

A quick rundown of what Wisconsin Republicans proposed:

Republicans want to cut down the number of early voting days, limiting it to two weeks. This would very likely draw legal challenges; the proposal is very similar to a previous law that the courts struck down in 2016 for “stifling votes for partisan gain.” There’s a proposal that would allow the Republican Legislature to intervene in legal cases and hire their own lawyers, to effectively replace the Democratic Attorney General all together — the constitutionality of which is up for debate.

They also want to change the date for Wisconsin’s 2020 presidential primary from April to March, which Republicans say will separate “nonpartisan” elections from partisan ones, and liberal advocates say is a play to protect conservative state Supreme Court candidates up for reelection. This idea has already raised the ire of Republican and Democratic election clerks across the state, who say it would be a logistical nightmare to hold three elections.

The changes would give the legislature more power over the boards of certain commissions, like the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), the state’s jobs-focused agency, which has come under a lot of scrutiny for giving Taiwanese company Foxconn Technology Group $3 billion in tax breaks in exchange for their $10 billion factory — an investment that even the state’s Legislative Bureau said the state wouldn’t bring returns until after 2043. Evers said he wanted to get rid of WEDC altogether, as it has garnered a reputation of falling short of its jobs promises.

The proposals would limit Evers’s abilities to change the state’s work requirement laws around food stamps and health care, giving the legislature oversight over any federal waivers the state has received. Walker pushed for Medicaid work requirement waivers and waivers to drug test food stamp recipients. Republicans want to stop Wisconsin’s incoming attorney general from withdrawing the state from a federal lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, instead requiring legislative approval to do so.

Regarding Michigan:

Wisconsin isn’t the only state undergoing the pains of a transition of power. In Michigan, the November midterm elections brought a total rebuke of Michigan’s Republicans.

For the first time in nearly three decades, the top three positions in the state’s executive branch will be held by Democrats. And in the face of that, Republican state leaders are using the lame duck session to push forward government changes that would limit Democrats’ power in the state.

One bill would ensure the Republican-controlled legislature has the opportunity of defending state laws in court, even if the Democratic administration is reluctant to do so.

For example, Nessel, the attorney general-elect, has said she may not defend the 2015 law that allows faith-based adoption agencies to decline working with same-sex couples, an issue that remains tied up in the courts.

Another proposal would shift the oversight of the state’s campaign finance law away from the Secretary of State’s Office and to a commission that would include an equal number of members from each party, appointed by the governor at the advisement of the state’s Republican and Democratic parties.

These proposals have already sparked partisan bickering. Like in Wisconsin, Republicans in Michigan argue that these proposals are just about good governance, while Democrats point out that this sudden dedication to checks and balances comes only when the top three positions in the state will be held by Democrats.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#263498: Dec 4th 2018 at 6:46:21 AM

I still feel a combination of term limits and impeaching one particular justice who "likes beer" would be the best way forward. I get the distinct sense that we'd be opening Pandora's box if we tried ramming through more justices.

Term limits IIRC would require a constitutional amendment and impeachment is more difficult than court packing.

If we're going to rectify their illegitimate behavior then court packing is far easier then the others, thus it's superior.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Dec 4th 2018 at 9:46:34 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#263499: Dec 4th 2018 at 7:14:23 AM

Just to answer some speculation about classification, information is required to be declassified after 25 years, unless it falls into one of these categories:

(1)reveal the identity of a confidential human source, a human intelligence source, a relationship with an intelligence or security service of a foreign government or international organization, or a nonhuman intelligence source; or impair the effectiveness of an intelligence method currently in use, available for use, or under development;

(2)reveal information that would assist in the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction;

(3)reveal information that would impair U.S. cryptologic systems or activities;

(4)reveal information that would impair the application of state-of-the-art technology within a U.S. weapon system;

(5)reveal formally named or numbered U.S. military war plans that remain in effect, or reveal operational or tactical elements of prior plans that are contained in such active plans;

(6)reveal information, including foreign government information, that would cause serious harm to relations between the United States and a foreign government, or to ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States;

(7)reveal information that would impair the current ability of United States Government officials to protect the President, Vice President, and other protectees for whom protection services, in the interest of the national security, are authorized;

(8)reveal information that would seriously impair current national security emergency preparedness plans or reveal current vulnerabilities of systems, installations, or infrastructures relating to the national security; or

(9)violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement that does not permit the automatic or unilateral declassification of information at 25 years.

Any classification longer than that requires review by multiple agencies, and any classification past 50 years requires the information to be about human intelligence or WM Ds. This is the category a lot of Cold War stuff falls into. After 75 years you need individual special permission for each piece of information, which is typically only granted for things like how our nuclear arsenal works or stuff like that.

Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 4th 2018 at 7:14:45 AM

They should have sent a poet.
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#263500: Dec 4th 2018 at 7:57:54 AM

It seems like a blatant oversight that legislatures aren't immediately dissolved/made impotent after an election so they can't start rushing things through knowing they lost something.


Total posts: 417,856
Top