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
We're already had this discussion before somewhere around here (or in the economics thread) that whatever passes for socialist in the US still falls under the right wing spectrum in the conventional definitions of the right/left leanings.
Sanders comes across of a defender of a regulatory and welfare state instead of a the minimal state mentality.
Inter arma enim silent legesNational militaries are probably not socialist. Even Ayn Rand was in favor of them (along with police and courts), and she's lot more capitalist than I am. The reasons why militaries, police, and courts should be publicly owned are very numerous.
Personally, I think that redistribution of wealth for its own direct sake is a bad idea. It can be a lesser evil under certain circumstances, and there are some services better kept public (firefighters, schools, libraries, for example), but even then going full-on socialist is a bad idea; it devalues the people's property rights.
Leviticus 19:34(Nate Silver) "Stop Comparing Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders"
"Oh boy. Here we go again."
(i.e. More Obamacare Shenanigans)
The decision is not entirely unexpected. Judge Collyer signaled at oral argument that she was inclined to find that the House had standing. In her view, the House has an institutional interest in preserving its constitutional power of the purse. Whenever the president violates the Appropriations Clause, he gores the House’s constitutionally protected interest. In the judge’s view, that’s enough for a federal lawsuit.
But here’s the thing. This may be a fight about the Appropriations Clause, but it’s also a fight over whether—as the administration claims—an existing statute actually appropriates the money. The House may think it doesn’t, but the House’s job is to pass statutes, not to file lawsuits to determine their meaning. That’s why the courts have routinely rejected legislative efforts to sue the president over purported statutory violations. “Accepting the House’s position here,” as Walter Dellinger wrote a couple of weeks ago, “means opening the door to lawsuits whenever Congress and the president disagree over what a law means.”
Judge Collyer knows that such a radical position is untenable. To avoid it, she attempts to cabin her decision by saying that the House’s case is not really about a statute. Instead, it’s about “adherence to [a] specific constitutional requirement”—the Appropriations Clause. To underscore the point, the judge, in a separate portion of her opinion, holds that the House lacks standing to bring a separate challenge to the administration’s delay of the employer mandate. In contrast to the dispute over the Appropriations Clause, that challenge concerns “only the implementation of a statute.”
But the judge’s distinction—one she characterizes as “critical” to her decision—is incoherent. Both challenges involve the violation of a constitutional requirement. The challenge to the cost-sharing reductions alleges a violation of the Appropriations Clause. And the challenge to the delay of the employer mandate alleges a violation of Congress’s constitutional authority to make laws.
Likewise, both challenges concern the implementation of a statute. The Obama administration says that an existing statute supplies a permanent appropriation for the cost-sharing reductions. It also says that the IRS has been delegated the authority to temporarily delay the effective date of statutes.
As far as standing goes, there’s no difference at all between the two portions of the House’s lawsuit. If the House has standing to press its Appropriations Clause challenge, then getting into court is just a matter of dressing up a statutory claim in constitutional garb. It’s child’s play to recharacterize an alleged statutory violation as a transgression of the president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws that Congress enacts.
At times, Judge Collyer’s opinion can be read to suggest that standing rules should be relaxed when it comes to the Appropriations Clause. But why should that be? Many decades ago, the Supreme Court crafted a special standing rule for Establishment Clause challenges to tax statutes. But the Court in recent years has all-but-abandoned that provision-specific approach: “To alter the rules of standing or weaken their requisite elements would be inconsistent with the case-or-controversy limitation on federal jurisdiction imposed by Article III.”
For these reasons and others, I’m pretty confident that the court of appeals won’t let the judge’s decision stand. But it’s hard to know how soon it’ll get its hands on the case. Because Judge Collyer’s decision doesn’t finally resolve the House’s lawsuit, the government doesn’t have the right to take an immediate appeal.
The government can, however, ask Judge Collyer to certify her order under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). Such a certification is appropriate, the statute says, when an order involves “a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” If the court of appeals agrees that the judge’s order meets that standard, an appeal could proceed immediately.
If any case meets the §1292(b) standard, it’s this one. Accepting Judge Collyer’s order would mark an unprecedented expansion of judicial authority into interbranch food fights. The judge herself acknowledged that “no case has decided whether this institutional plaintiff has standing on facts such as these.” And getting the standing question squared away could lead to the immediate termination of this misbegotten lawsuit.
We’ll see whether Judge Collyer sees it the same way. In the meantime, hold onto your hats. We’re in for another wild ride.
edited 11th Sep '15 2:39:34 PM by PotatoesRock
![]()
![]()
![]()
That's acutely funny because the man who designed the AK only got a small bonus for it, while the Soviet Union made a killing off the thing. His family has sued the Russian government for some of the money. Mind you their are all sorts of story's of the same thing happening to employee's of large companies.
![]()
I know, just pointing out a fun fact.
I suppose this is ether the price he has to pay to get the Iran deal, or we aren't going to lift the thing until Cuba turns over all the domestic terrorists that fled to the country during the 60's and 70's.
edited 11th Sep '15 3:03:55 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.According to this article
, the embargo can only be repealed by Congress. Though "executive actions could recede trade and travel restrictions"
Rick Perry officially ends his run for the presidency
. Wonder where his supporters will go now.
The guy who posted, one of the most disliked video's in Youtube history
Oops
edited 11th Sep '15 3:19:27 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

@Bonsai; he ran as a socialist in his own state of Vermont. I think they call it the Moose party or some such there. He ran independent/democrat only when he had to run for the US Congress.
@Green; Then I guess Dallas here is socialist as fuck, depending on whether the DART is city owned or privately run. I know Mesquite skipped out on the whole deal because it meant a slight rise in taxes at the time it started.
edited 11th Sep '15 1:57:22 PM by AceofSpades