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
^^I think these states need to check the opinions - and their number - in Obergefell vs Hodges since Scalia's death would only reduce the amount of dissenting opinions, not swing the decision.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWisconsin Governor Scott Walker endorses Ted Cruz.
And here we see the first major effect of Scalia's absence. This will become a tough battle for the Senate, assuming that the morons in DNC realize the need to campaign aggressively.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIndeed, if the Senate Republicans are stonewalling Obama on Judge Garland's ascension, they will likely continue stonewalling when Clinton wins the presidency if there isn't a Democratic majority in the Senate.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyWait, those "fair share" fees are a thing?
I am not anti-union when unions keep their business to promoting fair wage, health and safety issues. I am not a fan of them when they become protectionist, obstructive, bureaucratic behemoth entities themselves. This seems to fall under the later.
I believe it means the lower court ruling that was in effect prior to the Supreme Court appeal stands, yes.
edited 29th Mar '16 1:32:27 PM by Elle
![]()
One of the Republicans commented that, if Hillary is the victor in November, they should hold hearings for Garland, though I can't find the link.
And McConnell doubled down by refusing to comment If he'd hold hearings for the NEXT President's nominee
. How the fuck people can look at that and not get incensed is beyond me.
If the Republican Senate decides not to hold confirmation hearings for any Democratic appointees or vote on any Democratic bills ever again, I think there might be some kind of coup or revolution.
edited 29th Mar '16 1:34:55 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"edited 29th Mar '16 1:39:30 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.Not that it's really morally justifiable but the thing is that gerrymandering is a double edged sword for Congressional Republicans. On one hand it helps them get elected and stay in office but on the other hand, it means that their supporters are highly partisan and will punish them for any overtures to Democrats.
Like it's the right thing to do (and I hope I would still think this if the shoe was on the other foot) but there's no political benefit in giving Garland/any nominee by a Democratic President a hearing.
Thanks Obama (I Always Wanted to Say That).
edited 29th Mar '16 1:41:10 PM by Hodor2
<Sigh> These fools...
^Er, gerrymandering (or to be precise, partisan redistricting) cannot affect the Supreme Court - the judges are confirmed by the Senate, whose districts are the state borders.
edited 29th Mar '16 1:41:37 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanA tie status favors the lower court's decision, no matter what the lower court decided. Thus it is possible that one lower court decides one way on an issue while another lower court decides in the other way on the same issue, and if the Supreme Court is stuck with a tie as it likely will with four conservative judges and four liberal judges, both lower court rulings apply to the respective jurisdictions of both lower courts though the Supreme Court can rehear the case later when there is no threat of a tie. The reason the Supreme Court and pretty much every court in America has an odd number of judges is to prevent a tie from occurring. With an odd number of people deciding on an issue, no tie can occur. So long as the Supreme Court has a vacancy and has a 4-4 split ties will occur often.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyWhat you guys need to get is to have Vieth v. Jubelirer
reversed - it was the case where SCOTUS found political redistricting to be non-justiciable.
I am not anti-union when unions keep their business to promoting fair wage, health and safety issues. I am not a fan of them when they become protectionist, obstructive, bureaucratic behemoth entities themselves. This seems to fall under the later.
If this is the case that I think it is, (and from a quick look at the link, I'm pretty sure it is) then the way I saw it explained is this: when the public union negotiates a contract for its members, it's not just direct members of the union that are affected. As a result, non union members of the same trade in the area also get bumps in terms of their pay, benefits, etc. because the government spends way less time trying to screw over every person who works for them by means of paying them the absolute least amount of money possible, with the least benefits possible. So by association, non-union members benefit without kicking in any dues.
However, it then can become a problem similar to insurance... if I'm not required to carry any insurance normally, what's to stop me from picking up insurance for the 2 months I may need it before a known hospital visit, letting the company pay the cost, then cut off my policy and congratulate myself on how I put one over on that dumbass insurance company? Why do I need to pay union dues when I can refuse to become part of it, and then reap all the rewards of their negotiations? (Nevermind that everyone actually taking such an approach will result in the insurance market crashing or the union dying off.)
Well, just like the idea was to make people required to carry insurance so that the insurance market doesn't crash or become to unprofitable to exist, the idea back in the 70s was that people who opted not to officially become part of the union still had to kick in at least somewhat, since they were benefiting from the union's actions.
Except now, with the help of some right-wing anti-union groups, some people took the unions to court and tried to insist that the money they kicked in to the union was the same as endorsing the union's speech and political positions, (money = speech, don'tcha know) so by the union collecting these fees they were misusing the speech of these people and they wanted to stop the union from being able to collect those fees. One of the appeals courts ruled in favor of these people, and with the 4-4- tie on the Supreme Court, that ruling will remain in place for now.
As for other news, here's an in-depth audio bit from NPR about the tax plans of each candidate, and what it could mean
. I haven't listened to it just yet because I saw it linked but am away from anyplace where I can listen to it at the moment, so I can't vouch for the quality of the piece, but NPR is usually fairly solid on these fronts and I want a marker to be able to get back to it later.
edited 29th Mar '16 2:10:06 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Actually, the lower court ruled against the plaintiffs, i.e it said such fees are OK. The Supreme Court deadlocking means that ruling stands for the 9th Circuit. That is, Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon and Washington.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanMy bad then, apparently I misremembered which way the lower court ruled. I thought I remembered that things were looking grim for the unions in the case, but that may have been a result of hearing about the case prior to Scalia passing on, which would have been an automatic vote against the unions.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Addendum: Seems like comments on El Diablo's and Trump's tax policies are incoming
. If you think Sanders' math is off, wait until you've seen their plans - the spending cuts required would make Kansas look liberal. Other analyses welcome too.
Regarding guns for defense in wartime: The only way that I can see some individual "trained American with a gun to defend his home" being effective is in the case of a bunch of Y'all Qaeda types declaring an uprising and some of them turning to burglary and home invasion when food runs low at the ranch. In other words, it'd be indistinguishable from an ordinary homeowner keeping a weapon to deal with other criminal intruders in his home - legitimate reason to own a gun, sure, but you really would be better off with a shotgun than an AR-15.
@Fighteer: What's more likely is that, if Congress stonewalls to the point of a permanent budget shutdown, the President will simply issue executive orders and govern by decree until and unless Congress can get its act together.
Also, don't worry, you know that as well as I do that Mercedes Lackey is constitutionally incapable of not doing her research. In the case of Sacred Ground, she pretty much got the registration rules right, though everything varies on a tribe-by-tribe and state-by-state basis, largely because each tribe with a reservation is a separate sovereign nation with a treaty with the United States. (For example, there's an ongoing shitfight over whether the descendants of the Cherokee Nation's black slaves can claim Cherokee citizenship, and both federal and tribal courts are weighing in and trying to disentangle each other's rulings.)

Well, it was kind of a given that the law would never pass Constitutional muster, although I wonder if the states that are motivated to do it now are setting their sights on a split-decision on the Supreme Court.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"