Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

took a job in tuscon Arizona for a 25% pop in pay

time for another chapter--too many twisters, blizzards, rain and wind in the sunflower state

but getting rid 35 years worth of shit and a 4000 sf house is turning into a pain in the ass

Congrats...

[iam416]

Congrats, crash. A 4000 SqFt home in Kansas goes for, what -- $45,000?

Anywho, congrats on significantly upgrading Wildcats from atrocious to merely bad. BEAR DOWN, ZONA!

[Ghengis Jon]

Huawei all but admits (through denials) that it cooperates with the Chinese military.

"Even if we were ordered to, Huawei would still not install backdoors [to access information]," says Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei, a former officer in the People's Liberation Army.


Rrrrrriiiight. If the all powerful Communist Chinese government orders your company to do something, you'll just say eff you and thats that.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/06/27/Huawei-refutes-reports-of-collaboration-with-Chinese-military/6631561636256/

[Hannibal]

I didn't watch the debate last night (I pretty much never do -- waste of time) but Tulsi Gabbard is getting huge props for her comments on US foreign policy. She mixed in the usual retarded "Chickenhawk" argument with them but the rest of it is spot on. Trump's "America first" has not materialized. Too bad she looks like she agrees with her cohorts on the other Clownworld stuff though.

If she picks up a lot of steam, it will be interesting to see if she embellishes her military service and uses it as a shield against criticism ala John Kerry.

[Cody_Russell]

[iam416]

The Supreme Court rightly rejects the justiciability of gerrymandering cases. Thank fucking god.

[iam416]

And, he Supreme Court mostly rejects the challenge to citizenship question, but also includes a healthy dose of holding agencies accountable for decisions -- so there is a remand in that case.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The Supreme Court rightly rejects the justiciability of gerrymandering cases. Thank fucking god.

Haven't read everything yet a couple random thoughts:

The majority opinion concedes that hyperpartisan gerrymandering is a bad thing. Thank fucking god

Roberts is contradicting himself a bit in his summary isn't he? He says that the creation of independent commissions to draw district lines, by the will of the voters, is proof that the political process works. But just a few years ago, didn't he write a dissent which would have made these independent commissions unconstitutional unless they were created by the legislature themselves (and maybe not even then?)

[Dr. Strangelove]

On the census issue:

Unanimous decision at least in parts. Wow. But the law was pretty clear on this one as I said

I appreciate Roberts pointing out that the Court thinks that both Wilbur Ross and the DOJ were lying about their reasons for wanting to add the question. He didn't have to put that in the opinion but did. He backs the District Court on that issue and says they were right to remand

***********************

[iam416]

The majority opinion concedes that hyperpartisan gerrymandering is a bad thing. Thank fucking god

Great win for you. Congratulations.

Roberts is contradicting himself a bit in his summary isn't he? He says that the creation of independent commissions to draw district lines, by the will of the voters, is proof that the political process works. But just a few years ago, didn't he write a dissent which would have made these independent commissions unconstitutional unless they were created by the legislature themselves (and maybe not even then?)

He dissented on the basis that legislatures mean legislatures, not independent commissions. But, he lost. And independent commissions are now entirely permissible. So, there's absolutely zero contradiction. More like accepting defeating nobly and moving on.

[iam416]

Alito is entirely right about the citizenship question, but Roberts is mostly right. It's obvious that there's a substantial justification to include that question on the census. Duh. The fact the agency needs to explain itself better is more a meh. But, it may be enough to keep the question off the census -- it may not get resolved in time.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[iam416]

Meanwhile, Kagan entirely lays bare the precise justiciability problem -- how much is too much partisanship? This much! Awesome standard. How wonderful it would be for federal courts to decide political questions on, more or less, an obscenity standard -- I know it when I see it!

When the Ds control Congress and the Executive they can pass whatever laws they want to address this issue nationwide. Until then, both parties can work state-by-state (as, e.g., Ohio did). That's exactly the way it should work.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Alito is entirely right about the citizenship question, but Roberts is mostly right. It's obvious that there's a substantial justification to include that question on the census. Duh. The fact the agency needs to explain itself better is more a meh. But, it may be enough to keep the question off the census -- it may not get resolved in time.

[iam416]

Yeah, I mean the district court is going to set a schedule. The government will have to submit further evidence for its explanation (in this 'unusual' case). And the District Court will rule against them because it's in NY. The 2nd Circuit will affirm. The Supreme Court -- eh -- hard to tell. But, it's very hard to imagine it working through that process so quickly.

The lesson here is that we can obviously ask citizenship questions. OBVIOUSLY. However, you need to paper it up the justification. As with any contentious agency decision. If, by some small miracle, the Rs have the White House in 2030, the question will be on the census because they'll know how to do it.