re: Justice Kennedy. I concur--this news story is going to be more important than nearly every other news story which has happened so far this year, including the Mueller Investigation (from which we haven't heard a peep since Manafort went up the river), family separations, and the G7. The Republicans won't care too much if they essentially lose the House this November as long as they keep the Senate.
In other news, Justice Kennedy is retiring. He will leave on July 31st.
Trump will be able to name another justice, this time legitimately--this seat won't be stolen--but I'm still worried. I have precious little doubt in my mind that Trump's various supporters will push to him a justice that, like Kennedy, will vote against spending limits on campaigns, preserving the Citizens United decision.
I've said before that my top priority in politics is campaign finance reform. So long as powerful corporations and interest groups can funnel money into political campaigns, they will have far more influence over politicians than the general public, for two reasons: first, practically any virtuous politician who won't accept campaign contributions will lose to a corrupt politician who will; and second, any intelligent politician who accepts campaign contributions will know that the moment they lose support from their contributors, they'll lose their funding and therefore lose their next election. So long as politicians are dependent on money for their own survival, they will do the bidding of whoever gives them money.
And whether you're to the left or to the right, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, it's pretty much guaranteed that whoever is lining the pockets of your local Congresspersons is doing it for their own interests, and against yours. That's who politicians are listening to, instead of you.
Unless, of course, you have millions or billions of dollars and can afford to purchase the loyalty of your own pet politicians. In which case removing limits on campaign contributions is definitely in your best interests.
I'm going to go ahead and predict that whoever Trump picks will get confirmed by the majority Republican Senate, and it will be someone who will use their vote on the Supreme Court to preserve the ability of the rich and powerful to buy political power.
I'm going to go ahead and predict that whoever Trump picks will get confirmed by the majority Republican Senate, and it will be someone who will use their vote on the Supreme Court to preserve the ability of the rich and powerful to buy political power.
The *real* problem will be Harry Reid's legacy in the Senate--the Republicans will be able to use the "nuclear option" to confirm a Court nominee with a simple majority vote.
re: Justice Kennedy. I concur--this news story is going to be more important than nearly every other news story which has happened so far this year, including the Mueller Investigation (from which we haven't heard a peep since Manafort went up the river), family separations, and the G7. The Republicans won't care too much if they essentially lose the House this November as long as they keep the Senate.
I'm throwing in the towel momentarily at this point. In political terms, this is an extinction level event for the left, and they need to start preparing for what the inevitable consequences of this are going to be and wrapping their head around them sooner than later, because they are all going to happen. McConnell does not care about being seen as "hypocritical" on this issue, and pointing it out endlessly is going to get my side nowhere. The move against the Merrick Garland was all in service of this moment, and I was simply HOPING Kennedy wouldn't retire. All it ever was was a hope. The fatal flaw of the Democrats has always been their lack of ruthlessness when compared with their opponents, and this is where the price is going to be paid. I will not sugarcoat this, or engage in hypothetical nonsense about how to prevent it. The far-left Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hillary were told that THIS was the exact reason they needed to, and sufficient numbers of them just did not listen. Now gaze in wonder at the fruits of your Jill Stein vote.
I'm going to go ahead and predict that whoever Trump picks will get confirmed by the majority Republican Senate, and it will be someone who will use their vote on the Supreme Court to preserve the ability of the rich and powerful to buy political power.
The *real* problem will be Harry Reid's legacy in the Senate--the Republicans will be able to use the "nuclear option" to confirm a Court nominee with a simple majority vote.
Someone who flat-out stole a Supreme Court pick from a duly-elected President would have used the nuclear option regardless of anything Harry Reid did or didn't do. The idea that if he hadn't Republicans would be playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules is just absurd.
And as @semiticgod pointed out, this now entrenches money in politics for the rest of our lives. This will be a Supreme Court that, above all else, is completely subservient to corporate profit above all other concerns. If anyone here ever cared about this issue, you have lost, and you have lost BADLY.
The ONLY hope is that Jeff Flake grows a set of balls and actually stands up to Trump instead of just talking about it, and McCain abstains for health reasons. I put these chances at roughly 1% if I'm being generous.
Anyway, long-story short, for liberals, this is the asteroid heading for Earth in "Armageddon" and Bruce Willis isn't coming with a deep-drill team to save the day.
Mind you, IF Obama had been allowed to make his selection, I wouldn't be harping on any of this. I'd say give the Republicans their pick and move on as much as it sucks. That isn't the dynamic. The dynamic is that the African-American President was denied the ability to fulfill his constitutionally granted power, and it was instead gifted to his predecessor. Everything regarding the Supreme Court forevermore is tainted by that act.
Someone who flat-out stole a Supreme Court pick from a duly-elected President would have used the nuclear option regardless of anything Harry Reid did or didn't do. The idea that if he hadn't Republicans would be playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules is just absurd.
I do not disagree with that assessment. The earlier use of the nuclear option simply makes it easier for the Senate to invoke it again under these circumstances--the precedent has already been set.
Another note on the taxes thing: I find it weird that I can say "I am willing to support this policy even if it comes at my own personal expense because I think it's the right thing to do" and have it treated as a selfish statement.
Another note on the taxes thing: I find it weird that I can say "I am willing to support this policy even if it comes at my own personal expense because I think it's the right thing to do" and have it treated as a selfish statement.
It may not be selfish when you project your willingness onto others, but it's far less altruistic.
I'm going to go ahead and predict that whoever Trump picks will get confirmed by the majority Republican Senate, and it will be someone who will use their vote on the Supreme Court to preserve the ability of the rich and powerful to buy political power.
The *real* problem will be Harry Reid's legacy in the Senate--the Republicans will be able to use the "nuclear option" to confirm a Court nominee with a simple majority vote.
Harry Reid used that due to in unprecedented Republican obstruction. Obama faced more than 500 filibusters in the Senate.
In the 230-year period between the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and Barack Obama's election, opposition parties blocked a grand total of 68 presidential nominees. In the three years and 10 months between Obama's inauguration and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's move to eliminate the filibuster for lower court nominees, Republicans had blocked 79 of them – that's 54 percent of the historic total in just under four years.
re: Justice Kennedy. I concur--this news story is going to be more important than nearly every other news story which has happened so far this year, including the Mueller Investigation (from which we haven't heard a peep since Manafort went up the river), family separations, and the G7. The Republicans won't care too much if they essentially lose the House this November as long as they keep the Senate.
@Mathsorcerer That was a good article. I'm glad that it mentioned the '67 space treaty I posted a while back. It talked about the holes that treaty probably has in it now due major advances in tech and political environment. I'm thinking that treaty is going to be ignored soon, esp. with talk of military in space ramping up. Being able, as the Chinese did with shooting an object moving at 17,000mph from the ground, and leaving debris floating around is going to make it even more 'messy' up there regarding other sats orbiting the planet. To be honest though, a higher military presence in space is coming regardless, from somebody, which in my mind just means more danger (as the article mentioned).
Harry Reid used that due to in unprecedented Republican obstruction. Obama faced more than 500 filibusters in the Senate.
In the 230-year period between the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and Barack Obama's election, opposition parties blocked a grand total of 68 presidential nominees. In the three years and 10 months between Obama's inauguration and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's move to eliminate the filibuster for lower court nominees, Republicans had blocked 79 of them – that's 54 percent of the historic total in just under four years.
That is what being the "opposition party" looks like. Except for refusing to hold nomination hearings for a SCOTUS nominee (couldn't the Court have somehow forced the Senate to hold a hearing? *shrug* probably not), blocking all those nominations is Constitutional even if it is spiteful and unusual.
The circumstances are irrelevant because the precedent has been set. Trump will move to nominate someone by the end of August and the Senate will rush through confirmation hearings by the end of September before holding a simple majority vote. He will probably pick someone less than ideal but the Senate will simply rubber-stamp that person and before 1 October (the date the SCOTUS year begins) a new Justice will be seated. Of course, the Court may refuse to seat the newly-appointed Justice but that probably isn't going to happen.
@Zaghoul Exactly. Even if you disagree with the idea of a space force (in my opinion, that should be a branch of the Air Force like it already is but I am not the one in charge), the push to weaponize space is already underway. Most satellites which get placed into orbit are highly classified so I cannot prove my assertion, but if you think that we *haven't* launched a weaponized satellite then you are naive.
That is what being the "opposition party" looks like. Except for refusing to hold nomination hearings for a SCOTUS nominee (couldn't the Court have somehow forced the Senate to hold a hearing? *shrug* probably not), blocking all those nominations is Constitutional even if it is spiteful and unusual.
That's a bit of a logical leap. You're assigning "blame" for this circumstance on Harry Reid's invoking of the nuclear option, which was in response to an absolutely unprecedented level of congressional obstruction.
The argument falls apart in two ways:
1) - It doesnt matter if it's constitutional or not, since both actions (Opposing the appointment of nominees and invoking the nuclear option) are constitutional.
2) -The nuclear option was invoked in response to the obstruction. So why are we blaming the effect rather than the cause?
The Supreme Court had another awful decision (before Trumps pick). The Janus decision - the Court ruled against Unions.
This is a major win for Corporations and a devastating loss for workers. Get ready to get paid less and earn less benefits.
The ruling said, simply, that public-sector unions can no longer require non-union workers to pay fees that allow unions to collectively bargain. The practical effects of that decision are that unions will lose considerable bargaining power and that union membership could well sink.
Wait, you say, if you don't pay then you shouldn't get union wages. That's all well and good until you realize that the companies simplify have to encourage a few people to not join a union by offering higher wages for a cycle or two then the union will die and you'll be at the whim of the company. The company against one instead of collective bargaining. And when it comes to layoffs why not layoff the union guys first?
That's a bit of a logical leap. You're assigning "blame" for this circumstance on Harry Reid's invoking of the nuclear option, which was in response to an absolutely unprecedented level of congressional obstruction.
The argument falls apart in two ways:
1) - It doesnt matter if it's constitutional or not, since both actions (Opposing the appointment of nominees and invoking the nuclear option) are constitutional.
2) -The nuclear option was invoked in response to the obstruction. So why are we blaming the effect rather than the cause?
1) Good point.
2) Because no one *forced* Reid to use the nuclear option--he *chose* it. People always bear the responsibility of their choices.
re: Janus decision.... If I am a public sector employee (the focus of that case) but I am not a member of the union, then I shouldn't have to pay *anything* into the union, even if their actions benefit me.
On the rest, you aren't wrong--another win for employers. We still aren't headed back to the Robber Baron days but even if the decision had gone the other way employers still hold the upper hand. "Oh, you won't agree to our terms? *shrug* We'll just sell the business and wish you good luck finding another job." Corporate executives *always* land on their feet, except in cases where they have been found guilty by the SEC (and even then they still land on their feet--after getting out of prison, Michael Millken (junk bond king) wound up making *more* money then he did during his heydey in the 1980s).
I'm going to go ahead and predict that whoever Trump picks will get confirmed by the majority Republican Senate, and it will be someone who will use their vote on the Supreme Court to preserve the ability of the rich and powerful to buy political power.
The *real* problem will be Harry Reid's legacy in the Senate--the Republicans will be able to use the "nuclear option" to confirm a Court nominee with a simple majority vote.
Someone who flat-out stole a Supreme Court pick from a duly-elected President would have used the nuclear option regardless of anything Harry Reid did or didn't do.
It was weird that there wasn't more outrage about that at the time. I have a feeling that the Democrats thought that Hillary would be the next President and then the fight would have been much easier. I'm not sure the Republicans could have held up the process for 4-8 years. It's just a hunch I have though...
I'm going to go ahead and predict that whoever Trump picks will get confirmed by the majority Republican Senate, and it will be someone who will use their vote on the Supreme Court to preserve the ability of the rich and powerful to buy political power.
The *real* problem will be Harry Reid's legacy in the Senate--the Republicans will be able to use the "nuclear option" to confirm a Court nominee with a simple majority vote.
Someone who flat-out stole a Supreme Court pick from a duly-elected President would have used the nuclear option regardless of anything Harry Reid did or didn't do.
It was weird that there wasn't more outrage about that at the time. I have a feeling that the Democrats thought that Hillary would be the next President and then the fight would have been much easier. I'm not sure the Republicans could have held up the process for 4-8 years. It's just a hunch I have though...
I was furious, I just wasn't posting in this thread. Democrats are not equipped for taking on people like Trump and McConnell. They just aren't. Most of them are generally well-intentioned, but they have no concept of how to do this. They just aren't built for it. They are clinging to rules and norms that don't exist anymore. Moreover, I don't really think our system of government is equipped to deal with it either. The flaws are becoming exposed and they look fatal to me. After this news this afternoon, I saw this entire ball of yarn unraveling before my eyes. At the moment I'm totally resigned to it. I'm not even going to bother posting about it anymore. Being right will be no consolation. If what I imagine happening happens, I give this country 3 years before it's totally unrecognizable. Maybe 4.
And Kennedy himself seems eager to encourage Republicans to confirm his replacement before the November elections by simple majority just in case they somehow lose control of the Senate. That'll show those libtards eh? Unipartisanship. We have one state party that is very awful running things in this country. Even if we vote them out they've rigged the courts to screw the common man in favor of one religious extremists and corporate Republican donors for years.
Following Trump's announcement of 0 tolerance regarding import of Iranian oil for foreign countries the cost of the barrel jumped by more than 6% despite his call for mideastern allies to increase their production and keep prices down.
I remain steadfast in my belief that Obama should have called their bluff, fought fire with fire, and made a recess appointment of Garland and let the chips fall where they may. But such a move was never in his nature.
Actually, he did try to use his recess appointment power several years earlier to bypass Congress, and got burned by the SCOTUS for it:
"Supreme Court rebukes Obama on recess appointments
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high-level government appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess and unable to act on the nominations."
----------------------------------------
Surprisingly, I don't see it being mentioned in this thread that there was an ENORMOUS political upset this week in one of NY's congressional districts, which is being likened to the Democratic equivalent of Eric Cantor's ouster a few years back. I'm curious as to whether people think this is a good or bad sign for the likelihood of a "Blue Wave" in November.
"WASHINGTON -- The national spotlight is on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after her surprising upset in the 2018 primary for New York's 14th congressional district.
Some of the shock may have worn off on Wednesday, but 28-year-old Ocasio-Cortez, like the rest of her party, was still trying to make sense of her come-from-nowhere win. She knocked off the fourth-highest ranking House Democrat, 10-term Rep. Joe Crowley, who had been considered an heir apparent to leader Nancy Pelosi.
Crowley may have underestimated his opponent, who until recently was working as a bartender and organizing for Bernie Sanders.
"I wasn't born to a wealthy or powerful family," she says in a campaign video that went viral during the campaign.
Like Sanders, she considers herself a democratic socialist.
"The GOP tax cut could have paid for two years of public college for everyone in this country," she told CBSN ahead of the election.
Democratic leaders carefully parted ways with her on Wednesday on her support for Medicare for all, and the elimination of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Republicans reveled in the upset. They said it showed the socialist wing is building in the Democratic Party. But Pelosi didn't agree.
"It's ascendant in that district, perhaps, but I don't accept any characterization of our party presented by the Republicans," Pelosi said.
Democrats noted that Crowley is their only House incumbent to lose so far this year, compared to several in the GOP.
Some Democrats also said they believe Crowley may have been too focused on party dynamics in D.C. and didn't pay enough attention to his district. Others say it has less to do with politics and more to do with this being the year of the woman, and Ocasio-Cortez just the latest example."
Surprisingly, I don't see it being mentioned in this thread that there was an ENORMOUS political upset this week in one of NY's congressional districts, which is being likened to the Democratic equivalent of Eric Cantor's ouster a few years back. I'm curious as to whether people think this is a good or bad sign for the likelihood of a "Blue Wave" in November.
I wouldn't call it "enormous"--she won the primary against the incumbent and she will probably win the seat in November, but her single victory is not going to transform the nation or the Democratic Party.
As for the general election this November, there will certainly be Democratic wins because voters are motivated against Trump but I wouldn't count on a "blue wave".
If Trump gets a second term which is likely he can end up cementing a majority on the court even further. Is it too much to hope that Ginsburg will retire as well? These latest rulings have been great especially the one reigning in warrantless searches of your online data.
It's common for a sitting President to lose the House and Senate during the midterms, the Democrats had big losses in both midterms during Obama's presidency IIRC, so that is what I am expecting, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as who will sit on the Supreme Court for the next decade or two.
Regarding money in politics, I don't think there has been a time in recent history when big donors and money mattered less, we saw it in the race for the Presidency when Trump beat out someone who spent nearly double what he did, and again in this most recent democratic election where the candidate who spent nearly ten times what Ocasio-Cortez did over 3 months lost yet again.
Regarding money in politics, I don't think there has been a time in recent history when big donors and money mattered less, we saw it in the race for the Presidency when Trump beat out someone who spent nearly double what he did, and again in this most recent democratic election where the candidate who spent nearly ten times what Ocasio-Cortez did over 3 months lost yet again.
Money in politics is not important? It is critical now more than ever.
While it has not played much at all on Conservative media Trump has filled his cabinet with grifters and people using their positions in government to personally enrich themselves and their cronies and family members. Scott Pruitt has dozens of scandals in fact the EPA IG has run out of money to investigate him and there are like six investigations running down various schemes (soundproof booth, first class flights, 24/7 security, pay for play, oil company apartment bribery) he has been involved in, Jared Kushner has been linked to corruption from Israel to his companies, Ivanka has been linked to corruption with China trademarks, Ben Carson spent 31k on dining furniture for the office and blamed his wife, Betsy Devos has been screwing over kids in favor of shady lenders.
Basically the level of corruption from the Trump administration is unprecedented.
Clinton? I would not be so confident that she out spent Trump. While the numbers on the books show that she did, those numbers do not include big money the Russian government funneled to support Trump through the NRA and other nefarious actors who supported Trump through misinformation campaigns like Cambridge Analytica. Trump ran an unorthodox campaign and his supporters hid their efforts through various illegal ways that are coming out.
When conservative Presidents put only people on the courts who are going to forever entrench money in politics, there is no other argument to make other than "money in politics isn't important anyway".
If Trump gets a second term which is likely he can end up cementing a majority on the court even further. Is it too much to hope that Ginsburg will retire as well? These latest rulings have been great especially the one reigning in warrantless searches of your online data.
It's common for a sitting President to lose the House and Senate during the midterms, the Democrats had big losses in both midterms during Obama's presidency IIRC, so that is what I am expecting, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as who will sit on the Supreme Court for the next decade or two.
I think it's possible maybe 50/50 that Trump wins reelection. People have short term confirmation bias or whatever the term is. Studies have shown that if you get a medical procedure that goes terribly wrong all along the way but in the end if winds up better it's often remembered positively overall - the end result shapes the whole process.
So even though campaigns start like a year before the election, if he doesn't screw-up in the last two weeks people will have selective memory about all the lies, corruption, racism, and religious bigotry he has shown consistently. Also almost every recent president has got a second term, so yes, I'd agree he has a shot at reelection especially with the way the electoral college gives more weight to empty countryside than real people in cities.
And yes if gibsberg retires then obviously that would be another opportunity to pack the court with another ideological pick. Given Trumps love for Fox News (and his son is dating fox News Kimberly Guilfoyle) we could see Janine Garofalo or Napolitano nominated to the bench.
Hopefully at that point Democrats will be able to Mitch McConnell him.
Latest rulings have been great? That warrantless wiretap is literally the only decision that has been correct.
If Trump gets a second term which is likely he can end up cementing a majority on the court even further. Is it too much to hope that Ginsburg will retire as well? These latest rulings have been great especially the one reigning in warrantless searches of your online data.
It's common for a sitting President to lose the House and Senate during the midterms, the Democrats had big losses in both midterms during Obama's presidency IIRC, so that is what I am expecting, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as who will sit on the Supreme Court for the next decade or two.
Latest rulings have been great? That warrantless wiretap is literally the only decision that has been correct.
"A team of cold-case investigators claim they’ve decoded a 1972 message by D.B. Cooper — and that it contains a confession from Vietnam veteran Robert Rackstraw, long suspected of being the infamous skyjacker.
The letter was addressed to “The Portland Oregonian Newspaper.”
Months earlier, a man identified as the fictitious Cooper had hijacked a Seattle-bound flight and later parachuted out of a plane with $200,000, never to be heard from again.
“This letter is too (sic) let you know I am not dead but really alive and just back from the Bahamas, so your silly troopers up there can stop looking for me. That is just how dumb this government is. I like your articles about me but you can stop them now. D.B. Cooper is not real,” it reads.
“I want out of the system and saw a way through good ole Unk,” he writes. “Now it is Uncle’s turn to weep and pay one of it’s own some cash for a change. (And please tell the lackey cops D.B. Cooper is not my real name).”
Television and film producer Tom Colbert — who’s led a team of about 40 private investigators in the search for Cooper — said he received the letter after successfully suing the FBI for the Cooper files.
“No one even knew about this letter,” Colbert told the Daily News. “When I got it, I noticed it was typed just like (a different Cooper letter), so I called a code breaker and showed it to him. He said, ‘Tom, you’re not going to believe it, but his confession is in here,'” Colbert said.
Rick Sherwood, a former member of the Army Security Agency — which deciphers signals — said he spotted four phrases or words that were repeated throughout the note, including “D.B. Cooper is not real,” “Uncle” or “Unk” referring to Uncle Sam, “the system,” and “lackey cops.”
“D.B. Cooper” and “lackey cops” appeared in the same sentence, “as did “Unk” and “the system,” suggesting to Sherwood that the coded messages could be contained in those sentences.
He decoded “through good ole Unk” to mean “by skyjacking a jet plane,” using a system of letters and numbers.
“And please tell the lackey cops” was decoded to mean “I am 1st LT Robert Rackstraw,” according to Colbert.
Sherwood had deciphered earlier letters from Cooper and had become familiar with his writing style.
“I read it two or three times and said, ‘This is Rackstraw, this is what he does,’” Sherwood told the Daily News.
“I noticed he kept on repeating words in his sentences and thought he had a code in there somewhere. He was taunting like he normally does and I thought his name was going to be in it and sure enough the numbers added up perfectly,” he said.
He said the entire decoding process took him a couple weeks.
“I was definitely shocked his name was in there. That’s what I was looking for and everything added up to that,” he said.
An earlier letter, addressed to four different newspapers, contained hidden identifiers — including his military units — that pointed to Rackstraw, now 74 and living in the San Diego area. Rackstraw, who could not be reached for comment, was previously investigated and cleared by authorities of being Cooper, but he remains the most likely suspect in the elusive case.
“Let’s just say we closed the case and this is icing on the cake I didn’t expect, it truly is. We not only had his initials and units in the other letters, but we now have him saying, ‘I am Cooper.’ Rackstraw is a narcissistic sociopath who never thought he would be caught,” Colbert said.
“He was trying to prove that he was smarter than anyone else. But he couldn’t fight 1500 years of brainpower on our team. We beat him. I didn’t expect it, but it’s the icing.”"
Chine rejected Trump's ultimatum to stop buying Iranian oil. While this was to be expected Japan is also seemingly rejecting the demand.
Japan also cannot acquiesce too readily to the U.S. demands, as it has maintained diplomatic relations with Iran to secure a stable oil supply. But it buys less of its oil from the Middle Eastern country than it once did -- now accounting for about 5.5% of its imports -- and some in Tokyo argue that a temporary halt would have a limited impact.
The UE is also seemingly going to activate a solution of its own.
The European Union will press the U.S. to exempt European companies from the sanctions, an EU source familiar with the situation said. Brussels is also preparing to revive a so-called blocking statute that bars EU businesses from complying with sanctions imposed abroad by a third party. The EU seeks to maintain the nuclear agreement, to which Britain, France and Germany are signatories.
If Trump gets a second term which is likely he can end up cementing a majority on the court even further. Is it too much to hope that Ginsburg will retire as well? These latest rulings have been great especially the one reigning in warrantless searches of your online data.
It's common for a sitting President to lose the House and Senate during the midterms, the Democrats had big losses in both midterms during Obama's presidency IIRC, so that is what I am expecting, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as who will sit on the Supreme Court for the next decade or two.
Latest rulings have been great? That warrantless wiretap is literally the only decision that has been correct.
Literally, in your opinion.
Yes. The other decisions were allowing gerrymandered maps x3, refusing to help a mentally limited man reprieve from his coerced confession (Brendan Dassey), the presidents ban is a-ok despite Trump calling it a Muslim ban no problem with religious discrimination there, the Masterpiece cake where a couple comments from Colorado omg religious discrimination so total hypocrites.
Comments
re: Justice Kennedy. I concur--this news story is going to be more important than nearly every other news story which has happened so far this year, including the Mueller Investigation (from which we haven't heard a peep since Manafort went up the river), family separations, and the G7. The Republicans won't care too much if they essentially lose the House this November as long as they keep the Senate.
Trump will be able to name another justice, this time legitimately--this seat won't be stolen--but I'm still worried. I have precious little doubt in my mind that Trump's various supporters will push to him a justice that, like Kennedy, will vote against spending limits on campaigns, preserving the Citizens United decision.
I've said before that my top priority in politics is campaign finance reform. So long as powerful corporations and interest groups can funnel money into political campaigns, they will have far more influence over politicians than the general public, for two reasons: first, practically any virtuous politician who won't accept campaign contributions will lose to a corrupt politician who will; and second, any intelligent politician who accepts campaign contributions will know that the moment they lose support from their contributors, they'll lose their funding and therefore lose their next election. So long as politicians are dependent on money for their own survival, they will do the bidding of whoever gives them money.
And whether you're to the left or to the right, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, it's pretty much guaranteed that whoever is lining the pockets of your local Congresspersons is doing it for their own interests, and against yours. That's who politicians are listening to, instead of you.
Unless, of course, you have millions or billions of dollars and can afford to purchase the loyalty of your own pet politicians. In which case removing limits on campaign contributions is definitely in your best interests.
I'm going to go ahead and predict that whoever Trump picks will get confirmed by the majority Republican Senate, and it will be someone who will use their vote on the Supreme Court to preserve the ability of the rich and powerful to buy political power.
And as @semiticgod pointed out, this now entrenches money in politics for the rest of our lives. This will be a Supreme Court that, above all else, is completely subservient to corporate profit above all other concerns. If anyone here ever cared about this issue, you have lost, and you have lost BADLY.
The ONLY hope is that Jeff Flake grows a set of balls and actually stands up to Trump instead of just talking about it, and McCain abstains for health reasons. I put these chances at roughly 1% if I'm being generous.
Anyway, long-story short, for liberals, this is the asteroid heading for Earth in "Armageddon" and Bruce Willis isn't coming with a deep-drill team to save the day.
Mind you, IF Obama had been allowed to make his selection, I wouldn't be harping on any of this. I'd say give the Republicans their pick and move on as much as it sucks. That isn't the dynamic. The dynamic is that the African-American President was denied the ability to fulfill his constitutionally granted power, and it was instead gifted to his predecessor. Everything regarding the Supreme Court forevermore is tainted by that act.
In the 230-year period between the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and Barack Obama's election, opposition parties blocked a grand total of 68 presidential nominees. In the three years and 10 months between Obama's inauguration and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's move to eliminate the filibuster for lower court nominees, Republicans had blocked 79 of them – that's 54 percent of the historic total in just under four years.
To be honest though, a higher military presence in space is coming regardless, from somebody, which in my mind just means more danger (as the article mentioned).
The circumstances are irrelevant because the precedent has been set. Trump will move to nominate someone by the end of August and the Senate will rush through confirmation hearings by the end of September before holding a simple majority vote. He will probably pick someone less than ideal but the Senate will simply rubber-stamp that person and before 1 October (the date the SCOTUS year begins) a new Justice will be seated. Of course, the Court may refuse to seat the newly-appointed Justice but that probably isn't going to happen.
@Zaghoul Exactly. Even if you disagree with the idea of a space force (in my opinion, that should be a branch of the Air Force like it already is but I am not the one in charge), the push to weaponize space is already underway. Most satellites which get placed into orbit are highly classified so I cannot prove my assertion, but if you think that we *haven't* launched a weaponized satellite then you are naive.
That's a bit of a logical leap. You're assigning "blame" for this circumstance on Harry Reid's invoking of the nuclear option, which was in response to an absolutely unprecedented level of congressional obstruction.
The argument falls apart in two ways:
1) - It doesnt matter if it's constitutional or not, since both actions (Opposing the appointment of nominees and invoking the nuclear option) are constitutional.
2) -The nuclear option was invoked in response to the obstruction. So why are we blaming the effect rather than the cause?
This is a major win for Corporations and a devastating loss for workers. Get ready to get paid less and earn less benefits.
The ruling said, simply, that public-sector unions can no longer require non-union workers to pay fees that allow unions to collectively bargain. The practical effects of that decision are that unions will lose considerable bargaining power and that union membership could well sink.
Wait, you say, if you don't pay then you shouldn't get union wages. That's all well and good until you realize that the companies simplify have to encourage a few people to not join a union by offering higher wages for a cycle or two then the union will die and you'll be at the whim of the company. The company against one instead of collective bargaining. And when it comes to layoffs why not layoff the union guys first?
So basically welcome to the gilded age again.
2) Because no one *forced* Reid to use the nuclear option--he *chose* it. People always bear the responsibility of their choices.
re: Janus decision.... If I am a public sector employee (the focus of that case) but I am not a member of the union, then I shouldn't have to pay *anything* into the union, even if their actions benefit me.
On the rest, you aren't wrong--another win for employers. We still aren't headed back to the Robber Baron days but even if the decision had gone the other way employers still hold the upper hand. "Oh, you won't agree to our terms? *shrug* We'll just sell the business and wish you good luck finding another job." Corporate executives *always* land on their feet, except in cases where they have been found guilty by the SEC (and even then they still land on their feet--after getting out of prison, Michael Millken (junk bond king) wound up making *more* money then he did during his heydey in the 1980s).
Following Trump's announcement of 0 tolerance regarding import of Iranian oil for foreign countries the cost of the barrel jumped by more than 6% despite his call for mideastern allies to increase their production and keep prices down.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rebukes-obama-on-recess-appointments/2014/06/26/e5e4fefa-e831-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.637390285e82
"Supreme Court rebukes Obama on recess appointments
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high-level government appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess and unable to act on the nominations."
----------------------------------------
Surprisingly, I don't see it being mentioned in this thread that there was an ENORMOUS political upset this week in one of NY's congressional districts, which is being likened to the Democratic equivalent of Eric Cantor's ouster a few years back. I'm curious as to whether people think this is a good or bad sign for the likelihood of a "Blue Wave" in November.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-does-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-primary-upset-mean-for-democrats/ar-AAzgfh7?li=BBnb7Kz
"WASHINGTON -- The national spotlight is on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after her surprising upset in the 2018 primary for New York's 14th congressional district.
Some of the shock may have worn off on Wednesday, but 28-year-old Ocasio-Cortez, like the rest of her party, was still trying to make sense of her come-from-nowhere win. She knocked off the fourth-highest ranking House Democrat, 10-term Rep. Joe Crowley, who had been considered an heir apparent to leader Nancy Pelosi.
Crowley may have underestimated his opponent, who until recently was working as a bartender and organizing for Bernie Sanders.
"I wasn't born to a wealthy or powerful family," she says in a campaign video that went viral during the campaign.
Like Sanders, she considers herself a democratic socialist.
"The GOP tax cut could have paid for two years of public college for everyone in this country," she told CBSN ahead of the election.
Democratic leaders carefully parted ways with her on Wednesday on her support for Medicare for all, and the elimination of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Republicans reveled in the upset. They said it showed the socialist wing is building in the Democratic Party. But Pelosi didn't agree.
"It's ascendant in that district, perhaps, but I don't accept any characterization of our party presented by the Republicans," Pelosi said.
Democrats noted that Crowley is their only House incumbent to lose so far this year, compared to several in the GOP.
Some Democrats also said they believe Crowley may have been too focused on party dynamics in D.C. and didn't pay enough attention to his district. Others say it has less to do with politics and more to do with this being the year of the woman, and Ocasio-Cortez just the latest example."
As for the general election this November, there will certainly be Democratic wins because voters are motivated against Trump but I wouldn't count on a "blue wave".
It's common for a sitting President to lose the House and Senate during the midterms, the Democrats had big losses in both midterms during Obama's presidency IIRC, so that is what I am expecting, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as who will sit on the Supreme Court for the next decade or two.
Regarding money in politics, I don't think there has been a time in recent history when big donors and money mattered less, we saw it in the race for the Presidency when Trump beat out someone who spent nearly double what he did, and again in this most recent democratic election where the candidate who spent nearly ten times what Ocasio-Cortez did over 3 months lost yet again.
While it has not played much at all on Conservative media Trump has filled his cabinet with grifters and people using their positions in government to personally enrich themselves and their cronies and family members. Scott Pruitt has dozens of scandals in fact the EPA IG has run out of money to investigate him and there are like six investigations running down various schemes (soundproof booth, first class flights, 24/7 security, pay for play, oil company apartment bribery) he has been involved in, Jared Kushner has been linked to corruption from Israel to his companies, Ivanka has been linked to corruption with China trademarks, Ben Carson spent 31k on dining furniture for the office and blamed his wife, Betsy Devos has been screwing over kids in favor of shady lenders.
Basically the level of corruption from the Trump administration is unprecedented.
Clinton? I would not be so confident that she out spent Trump. While the numbers on the books show that she did, those numbers do not include big money the Russian government funneled to support Trump through the NRA and other nefarious actors who supported Trump through misinformation campaigns like Cambridge Analytica. Trump ran an unorthodox campaign and his supporters hid their efforts through various illegal ways that are coming out.
So even though campaigns start like a year before the election, if he doesn't screw-up in the last two weeks people will have selective memory about all the lies, corruption, racism, and religious bigotry he has shown consistently. Also almost every recent president has got a second term, so yes, I'd agree he has a shot at reelection especially with the way the electoral college gives more weight to empty countryside than real people in cities.
And yes if gibsberg retires then obviously that would be another opportunity to pack the court with another ideological pick. Given Trumps love for Fox News (and his son is dating fox News Kimberly Guilfoyle) we could see Janine Garofalo or Napolitano nominated to the bench.
Hopefully at that point Democrats will be able to Mitch McConnell him.
Latest rulings have been great? That warrantless wiretap is literally the only decision that has been correct.
I'm likely jumping the gun here, but is it possible the only unsolved hijacking in US history has finally been solved??
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/the-search-for-db-cooper-investigators-say-theyve-confirmed-skyjackers-identity-by-decoding-long-lost-confession/ar-AAzi4Zb?li=BBnb7Kz
"A team of cold-case investigators claim they’ve decoded a 1972 message by D.B. Cooper — and that it contains a confession from Vietnam veteran Robert Rackstraw, long suspected of being the infamous skyjacker.
The letter was addressed to “The Portland Oregonian Newspaper.”
Months earlier, a man identified as the fictitious Cooper had hijacked a Seattle-bound flight and later parachuted out of a plane with $200,000, never to be heard from again.
“This letter is too (sic) let you know I am not dead but really alive and just back from the Bahamas, so your silly troopers up there can stop looking for me. That is just how dumb this government is. I like your articles about me but you can stop them now. D.B. Cooper is not real,” it reads.
“I want out of the system and saw a way through good ole Unk,” he writes. “Now it is Uncle’s turn to weep and pay one of it’s own some cash for a change. (And please tell the lackey cops D.B. Cooper is not my real name).”
Television and film producer Tom Colbert — who’s led a team of about 40 private investigators in the search for Cooper — said he received the letter after successfully suing the FBI for the Cooper files.
“No one even knew about this letter,” Colbert told the Daily News. “When I got it, I noticed it was typed just like (a different Cooper letter), so I called a code breaker and showed it to him. He said, ‘Tom, you’re not going to believe it, but his confession is in here,'” Colbert said.
Rick Sherwood, a former member of the Army Security Agency — which deciphers signals — said he spotted four phrases or words that were repeated throughout the note, including “D.B. Cooper is not real,” “Uncle” or “Unk” referring to Uncle Sam, “the system,” and “lackey cops.”
“D.B. Cooper” and “lackey cops” appeared in the same sentence, “as did “Unk” and “the system,” suggesting to Sherwood that the coded messages could be contained in those sentences.
He decoded “through good ole Unk” to mean “by skyjacking a jet plane,” using a system of letters and numbers.
“And please tell the lackey cops” was decoded to mean “I am 1st LT Robert Rackstraw,” according to Colbert.
Sherwood had deciphered earlier letters from Cooper and had become familiar with his writing style.
“I read it two or three times and said, ‘This is Rackstraw, this is what he does,’” Sherwood told the Daily News.
“I noticed he kept on repeating words in his sentences and thought he had a code in there somewhere. He was taunting like he normally does and I thought his name was going to be in it and sure enough the numbers added up perfectly,” he said.
He said the entire decoding process took him a couple weeks.
“I was definitely shocked his name was in there. That’s what I was looking for and everything added up to that,” he said.
An earlier letter, addressed to four different newspapers, contained hidden identifiers — including his military units — that pointed to Rackstraw, now 74 and living in the San Diego area. Rackstraw, who could not be reached for comment, was previously investigated and cleared by authorities of being Cooper, but he remains the most likely suspect in the elusive case.
“Let’s just say we closed the case and this is icing on the cake I didn’t expect, it truly is. We not only had his initials and units in the other letters, but we now have him saying, ‘I am Cooper.’ Rackstraw is a narcissistic sociopath who never thought he would be caught,” Colbert said.
“He was trying to prove that he was smarter than anyone else. But he couldn’t fight 1500 years of brainpower on our team. We beat him. I didn’t expect it, but it’s the icing.”"
Chine rejected Trump's ultimatum to stop buying Iranian oil. While this was to be expected Japan is also seemingly rejecting the demand.
Japan also cannot acquiesce too readily to the U.S. demands, as it has maintained diplomatic relations with Iran to secure a stable oil supply. But it buys less of its oil from the Middle Eastern country than it once did -- now accounting for about 5.5% of its imports -- and some in Tokyo argue that a temporary halt would have a limited impact.
The UE is also seemingly going to activate a solution of its own.
The European Union will press the U.S. to exempt European companies from the sanctions, an EU source familiar with the situation said. Brussels is also preparing to revive a so-called blocking statute that bars EU businesses from complying with sanctions imposed abroad by a third party. The EU seeks to maintain the nuclear agreement, to which Britain, France and Germany are signatories.