• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wilsongt

Member
Some of the people vying to be the GOP nominee for senate in 2014 are ratcheting up the batshit to 12.

Iowa Senate Candidates: Federal Judges Must Follow Biblical Law


Three out of four Iowa Republican candidates for U.S. Senate said Friday they would block any federal judge appointee who did not have a “biblical view of justice” or follow “natural law” as handed down from God.

The discussion came up at a forum hosted by The Family Leader, an organization that lavished money on a 2010 campaign to oust the Iowa justices who ruled that marriage equality was required by Iowa’s constitution.

When asked by moderator and right-wing commentator Erick Erickson what criteria they would use in confirming federal judges, the candidates tried to one-up each other to emphasize the importance of Biblical law. Sam Clovis, who recently asserted that Obama remains in office solely because Republicans are afraid of impeaching a black president, said any judicial nominees must be able to “explain to me natural law and natural rights.” Matt Whitaker went even farther, specifying that judges must be “people of the faith” with “a biblical view of justice.” State Sen. Joni Ernst stressed that judges must have an “understanding where the Constitution came from and our laws, and they all did come from God.”

You can't make this shit up anymore.
 
Turns out the guy bitch'd out and failed Ronaldus Magnus:





lol


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-aca-better-its-made-out#break

Well, the good news is another day, another convert.

And yeah, it's also kind of good that he's not dead too, I guess...

HOLY SHIT, it's either follow republican ideology or death? This is how bad politics have gotten in the US.

And sadly, it may only take this to convert people out of the misinformation thrown about by Tea Party fanatics and Fox News.
 
The lack of Hemingway is depressing I agree. I make my way through his books every few years and it's always amazing.
If you haven't seen Midnight in Paris already I highly recommend it. The Hemingway portrayal in it is perfect

sorry I'll stop being off topic now
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
A response to a few other comments.

The United States is a political unit, and so we should not needlessly pit its political subdivisions against each other.

The federal government is the largest democratic political unit that Americans can currently look to. So that's why the US. State governments are subdivisions of the US, so that's why not the states.

The state governments are not political subdivisions of the United States government. They are the primary political unit of government in the United States. The federal government is a secondary government imposed on top of the primary structure. To complain about states as political subdivisions being pitted against one another muddles thinking on the subject.

But even when we're talking about, say, cities or counties--which are political subdivisions of a state--it still makes sense to encourage competition between them. This is because nobody's likely to find the right mix of laissez-faire and government regulation on the first go. But if localities are free to experiment, then others can latch onto what ideas from other places seem to work well, or even try to improve on them.

State governments cannot really do anything to provide jobs; that is why they simply try to bribe businesses existing in other states.

I don't think this is true. For starters, they could provide jobs outright. But more than that, their policies can encourage or retard economic development. High taxes and more stringent regulation make it more difficult for a business to even get off the ground, even ignoring the potential for that business to move away.

Everyone's "constituents" should be the entire US. The idea that a Texas governor should make another state worse so that the one he runs is better is the problem. The entire concept shouldn't really exist.

I don't think this is right. The governor of Texas represents Texans to the exclusion of non-Texans, just as the governor of California represents Californians to the exclusion of non-Californians. They needn't give any mind to the residents of any other state.

just make it illegal for State's to offer special tax deals and privelages to individual businesses. Re-characterize that as a bribe. I definitely don't think that will solve the race to the bottom phenomenon, but I think it would help.

I would be open to a provision like this in a state's constitution. I don't think any government should be in the business of offering special incentives to attract a business. For starters, it smacks of cronyism. Second, there's no guarantee that the action will pay off in the end.
 

Wilsongt

Member
So the Republican Governors Association put out ANOTHER attack ad against the democrat running against Haley in SC. The subject is again about his job as a lawyer.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
So the Republican Governors Association put out ANOTHER attack ad against the democrat running against Haley in SC. The subject is again about his job as a lawyer.

This is an abominable attack, and the RGA should be ashamed of themselves.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
United Church of Christ fills lawsuit against North Carolina same sex marriage ban.

The denomination argues that a North Carolina law criminalizing the religious solemnization of weddings without a state-issued marriage license violates the First Amendment. Mr. Clark said that North Carolina allows clergy members to bless same-sex couples married in other states, but otherwise bars them from performing “religious blessings and marriage rites” for same-sex couples, and that “if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil judgments.”

Good lord I didn't know it has gotten so bad that it was even illegal for a church to perform a religious marriage ceremony accepting the fact that the state wouldn't recognize it. How can these people say they're protecting religious freedoms with a straight face when they're passing laws like this.
 
The state governments are not political subdivisions of the United States government. They are the primary political unit of government in the United States. The federal government is a secondary government imposed on top of the primary structure. To complain about states as political subdivisions being pitted against one another muddles thinking on the subject.
Besides the merits of federalism I just want to take the time to say: Yes they are. And this question was firmly decided in 1865 (and more firmly established with the passing of the 14th amendment) when states tried to assert their powers has the primary political unit to enslave other humans the real primary political unit said no

They lost that argument. The federal constitution is the supreme law of the land. The federal government has the power to abolish non-republican forms of state government, and the congress has control over many aspects of state governance. The state's have no recourse to challenge the federal government except to go to the federal government's judicial branch. How the hell is the secondary political union? The states ceded their sovereignty in 1788 when they signed the constitution. Shared Sovereignty doesn't change the fact that the federal is supreme over the states.

And yes, I am aware of the 10th amendment it doesn't have anything to do with state sovereignty

The 1800s called they want their political debates back . That's what muddles the discussion.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
United Church of Christ fills lawsuit against North Carolina same sex marriage ban.



Good lord I didn't know it has gotten so bad that it was even illegal for a church to perform a religious marriage ceremony accepting the fact that the state wouldn't recognize it. How can these people say they're protecting religious freedoms with a straight face when they're passing laws like this.

So wait, let me get this straight. A church wants to give gay couples a religious marriage surface and is suing NC for the right to do so?

This warms my heart.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Besides the merits of federalism I just want to take the time to say: Yes they are. And this question was firmly decided in 1865 (and more firmly established with the passing of the 14th amendment) when states tried to assert their powers has the primary political unit to enslave other humans the real primary political unit said no

They lost that argument. The federal constitution is the supreme law of the land. The federal government has the power to abolish non-republican forms of state government, and the congress has control over many aspects of state governance. The state's have no recourse to challenge the federal government except to go to the federal government's judicial branch. How the hell is the secondary political union? The states ceded their sovereignty in 1788 when they signed the constitution. Shared Sovereignty doesn't change the fact that the federal is supreme over the states.

And yes, I am aware of the 10th amendment

The 1800s called they want their political debates back . That's what muddles the discussion.

The fact that the federal government is supreme in certain, limited areas doesn't change the fact that the states are supreme in all other areas. You can debate whether this should be true, but you can't reasonably debate the question of whether it is true. It is.

It may be helpful to compare the origin of authority for states and the federal government on the one hand, and counties of a state and that state on the other. In the former instance, the people grant authority to each government independently. In the latter instance, the people grant power to the state, and the state grants power to the counties as subordinates of the state.
 

Thanks. And I'm glad Steven's Plurality(which he stated was wrong BTW) was worded to allow for this. I'm just worried it will it will end up before this court establishing binding precedent which overrules the decision. Though Roberts and Kennedy were with steven's so maybe the decision won't be as bad (I can imagine them sticking with a case by case or maybe going forward with Breyer's dissent which seemed open to allowing them if they were mailed or given out much easier). Still I'd rather wait till a court can establish voter IDs as unconstitutional burdens on the right to vote. There is no need for them. They're poll taxes
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, I'm not convinced of the merits of (civil) same-sex marriage, but nothing should prohibit a church from performing whatever marriage rites (same-sex or otherwise) they want to.

Outside of maybe underage marriage where there's an obvious compelling interest for the government to want to intervene, you're right.

Personally, I think that becoming state certified to hand out marriage certificates isn't protected by freedom of religion. The state should be able to tell you that by taking this certificate, you can't refuse to marry black people, or gay people. But if the church doesn't want to marry gay people, they should be able to just not get the certification, still perform all the ceremonies they want on precisely who they want, and tell the people they married where they can go to get an unceremonious marriage certificate or else it is a violation of the freedom of religion.
 
The state governments are not political subdivisions of the United States government. They are the primary political unit of government in the United States. The federal government is a secondary government imposed on top of the primary structure. To complain about states as political subdivisions being pitted against one another muddles thinking on the subject.

You can describe the structure however you like. In actuality, the federal government and state governments are both political subdivisions of the United States, a nation state ("the People of the United States"). This doesn't change the point made, which is that a nation state should have uniform commercial laws. And, indeed, the US constitution does broadly grant the federal subdivision of the US government the power to regulate commerce. Take a look at Federalist 42 for the same explanation given by the Founders that I have given here:

A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.

Although this is focused on the levying of tariffs, the same reasoning applies to the pilfering of businesses of one state by another. It can "nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity." One state's pilfering of another state's businesses "must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to [enacting policies less favorable to their publics]." I am expressing "the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest" which is "too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain."

I don't think this is true. For starters, they could provide jobs outright. But more than that, their policies can encourage or retard economic development. High taxes and more stringent regulation make it more difficult for a business to even get off the ground, even ignoring the potential for that business to move away.

State governments cannot provide net increases in jobs outright, because their spending is constrained by their tax revenue. Every job they create requires taking money from somebody else within the state to pay for it (and thus effectively costing a job somewhere else). The federal government is not so constrained. It can spend without increasing taxes and thus create a net increase in jobs directly and/or indirectly through raising aggregate demand. The power of state governments to affect economic growth pales in comparison to the fiscal sovereign (federal government). That's why I consider looking at the "record" of governors on job creation to be an exercise in political theater.
 

KingGondo

Banned
Oklahoma's first double execution in decades going swimmingly:

@grahambrewer: State stops execution of Lockett in the middle of process, delays 2nd after botched lethal injection. Media does not know if Locketts alive.

The courts ruled that the state didn't have to disclose the source of the drugs being used.

Shameful.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
You can describe the structure however you like. In actuality, the federal government and state governments are both political subdivisions of the United States, a nation state ("the People of the United States"). This doesn't change the point made, which is that a nation state should have uniform commercial laws. And, indeed, the US constitution does broadly grant the federal subdivision of the US government the power to regulate commerce. Take a look at Federalist 42 for the same explanation given by the Founders that I have given here:

Although this is focused on the levying of tariffs, the same reasoning applies to the pilfering of businesses of one state by another. It can "nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity." One state's pilfering of another state's businesses "must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to [enacting policies less favorable to their publics]." I am expressing "the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest" which is "too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain."

I agree with Madison that trade should be free among the states. I disagree with you that all laws touching on commerce--or at least those laws that might make one state more appealing than another to the owner or operator of a business--should be uniform throughout the nation. But Madison's point is my point: a state shouldn't be subjected to a burden by the laws or desires of another state. Kansas (to use a landlocked example) shouldn't be required to impose the same taxes and regulations as California any more than it should be required to pay California for goods passing through California while in transit between Kansas and some other place. And what's relevant here is not whether those taxes and regulations are determined by another state or by the federal government; what's relevant is Kansans' desires to impose such taxes or regulations internally, or not.

State governments cannot provide net increases in jobs outright, because their spending is constrained by their tax revenue. Every job they create requires taking money from somebody else within the state to pay for it (and thus effectively costing a job somewhere else). The federal government is not so constrained. It can spend without increasing taxes and thus create a net increase in jobs directly and/or indirectly through raising aggregate demand. The power of state governments to affect economic growth pales in comparison to the fiscal sovereign (federal government). That's why I consider looking at the "record" of governors on job creation to be an exercise in political theater.

I have no doubt that looking at the record of governors on job creation is an exercise in political theater--most of politics is just that. But I'm surprised you're arguing that states can't create net jobs outright. I don't think it's true that a state can't create a job without eliminating a private-sector job simply because the state pays its employees in tax revenues. Not everyone subject to a tax would have employed somebody but for the tax. It may usually be true that, because of the tax structure employed by a state or the magnitude of taxes imposed, the imposition of a tax results in the loss of some private employment, but I don't think that's necessarily true, which seems to be your implication.
 

KingGondo

Banned
Fallin should be ashamed
Update:

@grahambrewer: Corrections Director Patton delayed Warner's execution 14 days. Lockett declared dead of heart attack at 7:06. All 3 drugs were administered

Lockett was given execution drugs and reacted violently, kicking and grimacing while lifting his head off the gurney to which he was strapped.
Sixteen minutes after the execution began, a Department of Corrections representative told the media and other observers viewing the death chamber: “We’re going to close the blinds temporarily.”
http://m.tulsaworld.com/news/state/...17a43b2370.html?mode=jqm#.U2BEHKZDdNg.twitter
 

benjipwns

Banned
Disgusting. This should haunt Fallin.

The death penalty is a horrible inhumane thing that we should abolish. I don't know how it is legal with the 8th amendment. How much more cruel and usual can you get than ending a persons' life?
It's okay as long as you have objective criteria, also democracy:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=428&page=153

Did anyone realize that Michael Grimm was on Financial Services Committee?
Funnier is OFA sent this out the day he got indicted:
I have great news in the fight against climate change:

Just today, we removed a member of Congress from our list of climate change deniers--Rep. Michael Grimm (NY-11) announced that he agrees with the scientific consensus behind climate change.

That's huge--it's the biggest sign yet that the conversation around climate is changing. That's exactly why we've been organizing to make sure that climate change deniers feel the pressure from their constituents.

It's time to turn up the heat--add your name to join the fight against climate change deniers in Congress.
 

Chichikov

Member
Not at all. The poor have long relied on the ability to move between states--and even nations. Just think of the Okies moving to California during the Dust Bowl, or the Great Migration of African Americans from the south. American history is rife with poor people leaving one state to move to another in search of a better life. The ability to escape from the imposition of an undesired policy (or other circumstances) has never been restricted to the rich in the United States--though empowering the federal government to impose these regulations nationwide would almost certainly do just that.

I'm not talking about Toyota. I'm talking about the governments whose jurisdiction we are subject to. Yes, voting is a check on government power. But the freedom to relocate is another. And it's potentially more significant. Among other things, the government loses tax revenue when a person leaves its jurisdiction; it loses nothing when the current officeholders lose a person's vote.
So farmers moving to live in hoovervilles is a positive example for you?
Yeah, individually poor people can move and find jobs in a new state, but there's no denying that it's harder the less money you have.

And again, I'm not talking about restricting people movement here, you act like this is somehow increase people's freedom and choices where the opposite is true.
If someone want to move from California to Texas, more power to them, but what happens here is that.
And more broadly, this race to the bottom state competition creates pressure to lower corporate taxes and relax labor and environmental laws.
Now you might think these are all good things, and that's almost besides the point, the issue here is that this mechanism can just as easily push for policies you would not agree with, and more importantly, that the collective will of the people (at least as it express itself in our democracy) don't agree with.
And that's a bad thing.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more

Dear lord.

From the above:

He was pronounced dead at 7:06 p.m. -- 43 minutes after the process began -- Department of Corrections Director Robert Patton said.

...

In a media conference, Patton said Lockett's veins "exploded" during the execution, which began at 6:23 p.m. Patton said the inmate died from a massive heart attack.

...

DOC director Robert Patton left the room for several minutes and was on the phone. He returned to the room and said: “We’ve had a vein failure in which the chemicals did not make it into the offender. Under my authority, we’re issuing a stay for the second execution.”
 

KingGondo

Banned
KingGondo make an OT thread. This should be news.
Done.

Manarola said:
The death penalty is always going to be one of those things where one person thinks its fine, and another doesn't.
Welp, then we might as well not debate it at all!

The bottom line is that most civilized countries around the world have deemed it to be either ineffective, cruel, fraught with bias and error, or all of the above.
 
If the feds take Bundy's ranch it could easily be the biggest case of Americans being killed by government forces in more than a century. The amount of people involved already dwarfs Waco.

Well at this point they should just slam them financially. Freeze all bank accounts. If the animals leave the ranch, take them (again) and sell them at auction. Etc.
 

KingK

Member
Green is the new red, dontcha know?

Yeah, it is great know that the illogical paranoid conspiracy theories of the far-right fringe are what guide Scalia and Thomas. It is all about Marxism . . . not the fact that we don't want to breathe mercury, arsenic, lead, etc. Not the fact that coal is the most GHG intensive fossil fuel. Not the fact that you have to limit your fish intake in order to avoid mercury poisoning which is created from coal burning. Not that fact that we don't want smog shrouded cities like China that is literally killing their people.

Sheesh. BTW, since communist China burns more coal than anyone, wouldn't lots of dirty coal burning be the Communist thing? And formerly communist Eastern Europe had tons of dirty coal burning when they were communists. Duh.

Plus the Order ideology policy tree in Civ V has a thing relating to coal factories.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I'm not sure I follow, you think that's a good thing that business interests can supersede the will of the people?
Where did you get that from? I've been arguing for democracy in this discussion rather than allowing corporations to play one locality off another.

Plus the Order ideology policy tree in Civ V has a thing relating to coal factories.
+1 happiness from factories, +25% science from factories

I'm not warlike enough to ever justify using Autocracy, so it's Order for the production or Liberty for the happiness.
 
The death penalty is always going to be one of those things where one person thinks its fine, and another doesn't.

who cares what the supporters think? Its by definition cruel and unusual. We're the only developed nation that uses it. We should stop. Its shouldn't be up for democratic vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom