Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Progressives have, for so long, relied on the Courts to legislate their policies. With the Supreme Court now looking to go considerably more right, the NYT has a shocking fucking idea -- maybe we should do this through the legislative process -- so, you know, VOTE! -- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/o...tion%2Fopinion

I recommend that tact. Getting your ass kicked in the majority of states and somehow losing an election to Donald Fucking Trump isn't a particularly compelling case that your ideas ought to be the law.

[iam416]

I'm always, and I mean ALWAYS persuaded by the argument that the people I support will destroy the country. That's WINNING rhetoric.

[AlabamAlum]

Some areas where the next Supreme Court justice will really matter (off the top of my head):

*Administrative law
*Pushing back against the remarkably activist extension of Title VII's "sex" to encompass, more or less, anything LGBT.
*Race-based preferences in anything
*Abortion access (there's no way Roe goes, IMO, but the R State Legislatures have been increasingly making it very difficult to gain access through, IMO, bullshit requirements)

IMO, the administrative law shift will be the most important. I generally for that. I'll be against the the abortion access shifts -- I'm pretty firmly in a 20-week camp -- pre-20 - can't fuck with it; post-20 can fuck with it all you want. I'm not wed to 20, but around there.

I'm also sure the First Amendment will continue to gain traction as a shield against State imposed viewpoints.

Hell, I am in the 12-week camp unless it's found to be ectopic or something similar. To me, 3 months is enough of a window to make a decision.

[iam416]

I don't disagree with the 3 month argument, but I'm fine with extending it to 4 months or 5 months. My central point is that there is a line and on one side of that line it's really, really hard to restrict access. Pick whatever line you want. But, once you pick it, there's no fucking with access until you cross that threshold. But, that's exactly what R legislatures do in some fairly ingenious ways.

[CGVT]

Policy comes and goes. You can vote policy out of office. When you destroy the very foundations and institutions that make the country what it is as Trump is doing, it is a different story altogether.

Fake News! The press is the enemy of the people. Very good people on both sides. The dishonest FBI, CIA, Intel, Judges etc etc

Open your fucking eyes #trumpbuttlickers.

It's happening.

[iam416]

I should also note, from a remarkably cynical (possibly horrible place), a lot folks who want to have abortions are poor folks. The access restrictions hit them the hardest. And they are probably least equipped to raise a child and that child is statistically way more likely to encounter troubles than one of rich parent(s). De facto "forcing" those parents to have those children doesn't seem like a shrewd macro choice to me. I don't carry it to it's logical end -- I don't think they should be required to consider abortions or provided with abortion literature and if they want to have the baby then all power to them. But, if they don't, then they ought to be able to proceed -- provided they make some sort of vaguely timely decision.

[froot loops]

One thing I think is totally gone is the chance that the court would look at solitary confinement, Kennedy made rumblings about looking at it, I doubt whoever will replace him will have the same type of thoughts. I think solitary confinement is cruel, immoral and counterproductive. Especially the way prisons have deployed it.

[AlabamAlum]

Well, we agree on the unfettered access issue. Just the cut-off date. Once you enter the middle of the second trimester, it's too late, imo.

Access is an issue, though, in some states. You are very correct on that point.

[froot loops]

The Shelby decision overturned a part of a law that was legislated.

[iam416]

Access is an issue, though, in some states. You are very correct on that point.

Yeah, Ds worry about the Court, the Court, the Court -- meanwhile, in 30 states the Rs have freehand and in a lot of them they have passed enough laws to really restrict abortions without actually restricting abortions. And their chances of doing jackshit in those 30 states (I approximate) dwindle as they move further and further to Californewyorkian politics. And then the only real race is the R primary where jackwagon wackjobs can win enough races against normal Rs to affect the direction of legislation.

[Whitley]

I admit I don't follow admin law, but what is it that you don't like that you would like to see changed Talent?

[hack]

I agree that policy comes and goes, but when you destroy the institutions and the norms you destroy the policy-making process. There's no reason to expect good policy from a bad policy process. This remains, to me, the most handy guide for right now: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n23/david-...democracy-ends.



Today's example is assuming that reproductive rights are safe. We know there will be multiple attempts to remove those rights. Maybe it's going to take that loss before people realize they are in a hole and should stop digging.

[iam416]

Whitley:

I'd like to see less deference given agencies. As it stands, their rules are almost untouchable. I understand there is a practicality underlying that jurisprudence, but I'd like to see the Court take a really hard look at whether Congress has delegated whatever specific decision to agency. For example, I think the Clean Air Act is remarkably clear. And I don't think it covers carbon dioxide -- the shit we exhale. The EPA interpreted the Act to say that it did and thus could regulate accordingly. The EPA's interpretation gets a lot of deference as of today. I'd like to see that change. The issue is fundamentally one of statutory interpretation so I think the Court ought actually give the agency no deference.

Or, for example, it's not hard to imagine PDJT asking one of his agencies -- say the INS to interpret some portion of the an Immigration law rather radically. The Court ought to be able to put the brakes on that.

I think the Court will eventually reign in the executive and curtail, to some degree, what they (and I) view as legislating. Gorsuch is huge on that issue. I really don't care who the President is, but I really, really don't want PDJT operating the administrative state without some sort of check.

[Whitley]

SCOTUS is a long term deal. That is why it is important.

You can effectively kill Roe v. Wade via a thousand little paper cuts

Like I can imagine a law down the road that says State X citizens can only get abortions in State X. And would you look at that in State X it is legal to do the following: Outlaw abortion if you can detect a fetal heartbeat (about 6 weeks I think), Make so the person performing the abortion can be charged with murder of the unborn child and require that doctors have hospital privelages

[Ghengis Jon]

Another win for PDJT!!!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/north-korea-infrastructure-improvements-nuclear-facility/index.html