Support NeoGAF

[FyreWulff]

It's still a bit insane to think that if FDR hadn't died in office, we would have had 16 years of one president.

He appointed 8 of the 9 judges on the Supreme Court by the time he died.

 

[benjipwns]

Taft's the king, he chose* six of the nine justices on the Court. And only served one term.

He only actually served with one of those by the time he was appointed to the Court.

*Appointed five, elevated a sitting Associate to Chief.

EDIT: Jimmy Carter's the only President to serve a full term and appoint not a single justice. James Monroe has the fewest for a two-term President at one.

Assuming no others die/retire during Obama's term, H.W. Bush got to appoint as many justices during his single term as every President since has appointed in their two-terms. STUPID INCREASING LIFE EXPECTANCY!

Truman and Eisenhower replaced every single one of the justices FDR left when he died.

 

[Diablos]

It's still a bit insane to think that if FDR hadn't died in office, we would have had 16 years of one president.

He appointed 8 of the 9 judges on the Supreme Court by the time he died.

Term limits are dumb. It makes no sense really, if the people of the US do not want a President in office anymore after, say, three terms, they will make sure of that.

And in the case of a President like George W. Bush, he would have never got more than 2 terms. No term limit was necessary for him. Of course, a President knowing he's not term limited would likely cause him to think differently.

 

[benjipwns]

I think term limits are a good check on a politician establishing too large of a power base. Look at some of these House members and Senators who are Elected for Life. Or Governor for Life Terry Branstad. Are they really bringing anything extra from that "experience" to the table? More than the graft and spoils they hand out and leverage they use their positions for?

 

[Oblivion]

Despite PD's insistance, I just dont see Scott Walker as Presidential material. Ted Kasich, maybe. But not Scott Walker. Scott has all the charisma of a wet diaper and looks like a sesame st puppet. He does not seem "driven" or forceful...I think a candidate's presence goes a long way towards overcoming any deficits. In my opinion, if he decides to run, he will be Tim Pawlenty of 2016.

You know what's kinda strange? Both Scott Walker and Sam Brownback have fucked up their states. Both have killed the revenue streams with their stupid tax cuts, and both have middling job growth despite the power of said tax cuts. Yet, it seems while conservatives like what Brownback did, very few are actually defending him, but Walker still seems to be considered a superstar.

*Also, it's John Kasich, not Ted.

 

[benjipwns]

Brownback's an also ran. Was a Senator for 15 years, already ran for President once, is Governor in a red-red state which he nearly blew in a pro-GOP year. Scott Walker's the new kid on the block who's beaten back the Left three times in a blue state.

 

[Oblivion]

Good point.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think term limits are a good check on a politician establishing too large of a power base. Look at some of these House members and Senators who are Elected for Life. Or Governor for Life Terry Branstad. Are they really bringing anything extra from that "experience" to the table? More than the graft and spoils they hand out and leverage they use their positions for?

you get into debates about if democracy is better than limits on choice with term limits. I follow more on the democracy angle on that point. It also doesn't punish current generations/voters with previous generations/voters choices.

 

[benjipwns]

I think the risks, especially with the modern Imperial Presidency, outweighs any "democratic" value from being able to keep someone in office for life.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I think the risks, especially with the modern Imperial Presidency, outweighs any "democratic" value from being able to keep someone in office for life.

Not to mention the cult of personality that has become the hallmark of the modern presidency--for both Republicans and Democrats.

 

[B-Dubs]

Brownback's an also ran. Was a Senator for 15 years, already ran for President once, is Governor in a red-red state which he nearly blew in a pro-GOP year. Scott Walker's the new kid on the block who's beaten back the Left three times in a blue state.

That said, he's never had to run during a presidential election year and all his elections were either during the midterms, with low turnout, or a special election, with low turnout. On top of that his opponents barely had a pulse. I think he's being seriously overestimated right now, much like Rick Perry was, and is going to flame out spectacularly during the primaries.

 

[benjipwns]

Well, I was describing why he's hot shit with the GOP compared to Brownback, not why I think he's the most likely nomination.

My position on that was merely that he's the most likely compromise candidate once everyone else disqualifies themselves. Perry would have been this in 2012 except he bombed the debates right away and all his donors instantly bailed out. (He originally was the best funded candidate, over even Romney.)

Paul has no shot. Christie is going to be battered like Rudy trying to tightrope. Jeb won't be able to get past immigration. Carson's that guy who gets a good quip in every debate and people like but they'd never actually support. Huckabee seems like he's secretly killing his own campaign so he doesn't have to actually run. Pataki's a real non-starter. Perry's going to have to really work to make up for 2012. Bolton's base is too limited. Same with Peter King. And Santorum.

Kasich was my second choice if he actually runs. Walker/Martinez or Kasich/Martinez. It's what the people want.

And by want I mean are resigned to by process of elimination. aka the Romney and Kerry method.

I still think Pawlenty was the ideal man for this role in 2012, but he dropped out before the primaries even started. He would have done way better than Gingrich and Santorum as the last not-Romney candidate.

 

[benjipwns]

Here's a kooky idea I just saw someone advance hopefully not seriously.

Al Franken challenges Hillary.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[ivysaur12]

Here's a kooky idea I just saw someone advance hopefully not seriously.

Al Franken challenges Hillary.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I honestly don't think anyone who's ever been in a writers' room on a TV show, let alone on SNL, would be able to go through the scrutiny that happens when running for president because of the nature of that job. I also think Al Franken probably knows this.

 

[benjipwns]

Have you read any of the SNL books? I don't think there's anything left on how much of an asshole Franken is to expose.

Plus it's not like he'd win. And they'd let him in debates unlike Sanders.

Wait, why am I talking myself into this.

 

[Coriolanus]

Plus it's not like he'd win. And they'd let him in debates unlike Sanders.

Has that ever happened?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Walker is well liked by conservatives, unlike Pawlenty. Although I agree with Benji that Pawlenty dropped out too early.

That said, he's never had to run during a presidential election year and all his elections were either during the midterms, with low turnout, or a special election, with low turnout. On top of that his opponents barely had a pulse. I think he's being seriously overestimated right now, much like Rick Perry was, and is going to flame out spectacularly during the primaries.

Honestly I don't think Rick Perry would have done bad under normal circumstances in 2012. He was coming off back surgery and was clearly on medication. That mixed with his general Texas...thing made him sound dumber than usual. He still would have lost to Romney obviously but it wouldn't have been so embarrassing.

Walker is well spoken, unlike Perry, and has a record of winning in a blue state/defeating liberals. We can haggle over the relevancy of that (mid terms=lower turnout), but the fact remains that it'll be a good talking point for conservative audiences. And as much as liberals want to hand wring over Wisconsin's "terrible" economy...unemployment is at 5.4% there. Job growth is sluggish but the same has been true for awhile in Wisconsin. Like Michigan it has relied on various manufacturing sectors that aren't coming back anytime soon.

I think his jobs record will hurt in a general election, but not the primaries.

 

[Coriolanus]

Walker is well spoken, unlike Perry, and has a record of winning in a blue state/defeating liberals. We can haggle over the relevancy of that (mid terms=lower turnout), but the fact remains that it'll be a good talking point for conservative audiences. And as much as liberals want to hand wring over Wisconsin's "terrible" economy...unemployment is at 5.4% there. Job growth is sluggish but the same has been true for awhile in Wisconsin. Like Michigan it has relied on various manufacturing sectors that aren't coming back anytime soon.

I think his jobs record will hurt in a general election, but not the primaries.

Despite his blunders, Perry has charisma and his state is doing quite well indeed.

He'd bury walker.

 

[benjipwns]

Rick Perry was flush with cash, had a huge donor base, was besting Romney in the polls, had the situation at the time where he could tout Texas vs. everyone else, had all the "right" positions for the GOP, ideal personality, etc. But he lost all that with one debate basically.

He might have still lost to Romney, but he would have made it a hell of a fight since he would have grabbed donors and supporters Romney otherwise got by default. Gingrich being funded by basically one person and having a campaign so terrible they forgot to register for primaries, and Santorum's campaign not existing until the very last second can hardly compare to what a non-disastrous out of the gate Perry campaign would have done to Romney.

Perry probably would have done much worse against Obama though.

I don't think he's going to be very strong this time around though unless he really turns his game up. He's a far outside dark horse and if he bombs out of the gate again with numbers like he's got currently he probably won't even stay in the race until the primaries.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Despite his blunders, Perry has charisma and his state is doing quite well indeed.

He'd bury walker.

Not with his immigration record...

He can patrol the border all he wants, it doesn't change the fact that his relatively sane record on immigration turns off conservatives. Not to mention his comment about anti-immigrant folks not having a heart. Perry is on a short leash after 2012: one fuck up and his money goes elsewhere.

Walker's biggest liability is that he's a governor and thus cannot receive certain donations. That being said I just don't think Jeb Bush's money advantage will translate into votes. Especially once the field narrows. I expect Walker to have multiple wins and/or delegates by the time proportional states end and winner-take-all states begin.

My dark horse: John Kasich.

 

[Coriolanus]

Not with his immigration record...

He can patrol the border all he wants, it doesn't change the fact that his relatively sane record on immigration turns off conservatives. Not to mention his comment about anti-immigrant folks not having a heart. Perry is on a short leash after 2012: one fuck up and his money goes elsewhere.

I'm sorry, are we in bizarro land, where Romney was the embodiment of everything people wanted to see from a gop candidate, and was thus selected, or in the real world, where romney was picked because he had the least fuckups?

Same goes for perry. All you gotta do is fuck up less than the others. That includes not going to debates and public events high as a kite.

Immigration aint enough to remove Perry from the game. Wasn't then, isn't now.

Now im wondering which is the greater automaton: campaign trail Romney or day to day Walker.

He might have still lost to Romney, but he would have made it a hell of a fight since he would have grabbed donors and supporters Romney otherwise got by default. Gingrich being funded by basically one person and having a campaign so terrible they forgot to register for primaries, and Santorum's campaign not existing until the very last second can hardly compare to what a non-disastrous out of the gate Perry campaign would have done to Romney.

Dude. The Cain Train was, for a while, seen as a valid choice.

Them times, they were cray.

 

[benjipwns]

Maybe he wasn't high enough.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm sorry, are we in bizarro land, where Romney was the embodiment of everything people wanted to see from a gop candidate, and was thus selected, or in the real world, where romney was picked because he had the least fuckups?

Same goes for perry. All you gotta do is fuck up less than the others. That includes not going to debates and public events high as a kite.

Immigration aint enough to remove Perry from the game. Wasn't then, isn't now.

Now im wondering which is the greater automaton: campaign trail Romney or day to day Walker.

Romney wasn't picked due to the least fuck ups, he was picked because he was the only choice available. It was a clown field with no competition. Perry was the only other person who could have gotten the nomination and he fucked it up in one night, as Benji said.

 

[Diablos]

I think term limits are a good check on a politician establishing too large of a power base. Look at some of these House members and Senators who are Elected for Life. Or Governor for Life Terry Branstad. Are they really bringing anything extra from that "experience" to the table? More than the graft and spoils they hand out and leverage they use their positions for?

House members are there for life either because they're in such a conservative/liberal district no one would dare replace them, and coupled with how much money they can raise due to lax laws and the SCOTUS saying money is speech, that's your culprit. Throw the latest gerrymandering into the mix and that pretty much explains everything. Simply put, forcing term limits on House members would be futile because of campaign financing and gerrymandering. Perhaps it would be more effective for Senators, but honestly, I think the Senate does a good enough job of balancing itself out due to it being split into three classes and 1/3 of it always falling victim to the direction of social, economic and political realities. In fact, I think perhaps the House would be better served by this approach -- only 1/3 up for re-election every two years. Split it into classes. It's impossible to have a coherent message when you are literally spending over half the time raising money and kissing ass just so you can do it all over again. Case in point, a lot of Democrats who got stomped in 2010 would have likely survived in 2012. Not all, but a considerable amount. This, I think, would be far more effective than arbitrary term limits due to the nature of how money is raised and gerrymandering.

Not to mention the cult of personality that has become the hallmark of the modern presidency--for both Republicans and Democrats.

We're already looking at the third Bush and second Clinton running for the White House; term limits have done NOTHING in regards to preventing that. If anything it has forced political powerhouses like the Bushes and Clintons to look for other avenues to keep their stranglehold over US politics (branching out into the family).

Again, remove term limits for Presidents. If the public disapproves, the President will be denied his third or fourth term. It's unlikely that any President would do anything more than that with rare exception.

 

[benjipwns]

We're already looking at the third Bush and second Clinton running for the White House; term limits have done NOTHING in regards to preventing that.

Because they're different individuals?

It's impossible to have a coherent message when you are literally spending over half the time raising money and kissing ass just so you can do it all over agai

Then limit to one term. Bam, problem solved.

 

[Diablos]

Because they're different individuals?

You have to be kidding me.

Yes, George H.W. Bush's two sons are different individuals... from the same family who have dominated Republican Presidential politics since the early 80's...
Hillary Clinton is Bill's wife... they're probably still together for the mere sake of political ambitions.

It's not that they aren't allowed to be their own individuals, because they are, but to imply that you can throw all that aside and seriously look at them as someone without realizing who they are related to is asinine.

Then limit to one term. Bam, problem solved.

This is even dumber than unlimited terms. You need experienced people in the leadership and throughout the legislative body. Purging the entire body of its members every two years is incredibly stupid.

We really are a dynasty lol. Everyone and their dad was a Congressman, Senator or Governor. I guess like someone mentioned earlier it was bound to make its way to the Presidency. Obama really was an out of nowhere unconventional candidate.

Good point, btw. There's so many families with relations in politics, it's impossible to name everyone. Limiting a President's terms to two is kind of like a knee-jerk reaction, denial if you will, to the simple reality that politicians will ALWAYS figure out ways to retain their influence over the legislative, judicial and executive body.

 

[benjipwns]

You have to be kidding me.

Yes, George H.W. Bush's two sons are different individuals... from the same family who have dominated Republican Presidential politics since the early 80's...
Hillary Clinton is Bill's wife... they're probably still together for the mere sake of political ambitions.

It's not that they aren't allowed to be their own individuals, because they are, but to imply that you can throw all that aside and seriously look at them as someone without realizing who they are related to is asinine.

Who they are related to or married to is irrelevant. It's absurd in a modern society to consider sins to pass through blood or bonding relations.

This is even dumber than unlimited terms. You need experienced people in the leadership and throughout the legislative body. Purging the entire body of its members every two years is incredibly stupid.

Yeah, all that experience sure has done a bang up job.

Limiting a President's terms to two is kind of like a knee-jerk reaction, denial if you will, to the simple reality that politicians will ALWAYS figure out ways to retain their influence over the legislative, judicial and executive body.

Well duh, because that's who staffs those bodies. But any individual politicians influence, corruption and favors to interests can be limited by the simple one term fix.

 

[Diablos]

Who they are related to or married to is irrelevant. It's absurd in a modern society to consider sins to pass through blood or bonding relations.

I can't take you seriously anymore, sorry.

Yeah, all that experience sure has done a bang up job.

Good luck finding new politicans literally every two years who have what it takes to be a member of the House. They're pathetic enough as is because of how often previous members were held accountable at the voting booth; we don't need to force them out, the electorate and special interests are doing a good enough job of regulating that on their own (and for the sake of dysfunction, how sad).

 

[benjipwns]

I can't take you seriously anymore, sorry.

Good luck finding new politicans literally every two years who have what it takes to be a member of the House. They're pathetic enough as is because of how often previous members were held accountable at the voting booth; we don't need to force them out, the electorate is doing a good enough job of regulating that on its own (and for the sake of dysfunction, how sad).

So it's ideal that the American people can elect anyone they want as many times as they want no matter how pathetic/corrupt/damaging and this should apply to every office.

But it's terrible and darkness gathering if anyone related to anyone in politics also gets involved in politics.

I just want to know when democracy dies.

 

[Diablos]

So it's ideal that the American people can elect anyone they want as many times as they want no matter how pathetic/corrupt/damaging and this should apply to every office.

But it's terrible and darkness gathering if anyone related to anyone in politics also gets involved in politics.

You act as though these two things would yield different results, when in fact they depend on each other quite strongly (if we are to look at the Bushes in particular and how they were able to enact a lot of conservative legislation and policy during all those years).

 

[benjipwns]

You act as though these two things would yield different results, when in fact they depend on each other quite strongly (if we are to look at the Bushes in particular and how they were able to enact a lot of conservative legislation and policy during all those years).

what

 

[RustyNails]

Despite his blunders, Perry has charisma and his state is doing quite well indeed.

He'd bury walker.

This. I think a well-studied, done-his-homework Rick Perry can be lethal. I was almost certain he was gonna win the nom in 2012, but it seems like he was trying to wing it. But yeah, he is a charismatic rattlesnake.

 

[jamesinclair]

Fun fact: When Jerry Brown announces his candidacy for president, he will have run twice as much as Romney

 

[benjipwns]

Fun fact: When Jerry Brown announces his candidacy for president, he will have run twice as much as Romney

Funner Fact: His 1-800 number from 1992 still works.

Proving he's been lying in wait, ready to spring into action.

 

[jamesinclair]

Why are Americans absolute idiots?

Last month, automakers sold almost 31,500 hybrids, electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and diesels in the US, marking an 8.6 percent drop from a year earlier. Things were so bad that even the Nissan Leaf, so long a reliable touchstone for record monthly sales, had lower numbers in January. Things were so upside-down that Toyota, which for much of last year had been dragging down numbers, actually fared relatively well. Not so for US automakers, though.

For starters, General Motors' green-car sales plunged 43 percent from a year earlier to just 1,255 units, as the Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-in sales of 542 units were the lowest in more than three years. Mild-hybrid vehicle sales all but disappeared, while Chevrolet Cruze Diesel sales dropped 48 percent.

Ford didn't do much better, as green-car sales were down 27 percent from a year earlier. The company was consistent, though, as all six of its all-fuel vehicle lines had sales there were down between 15 percent and 36 percent from a year earlier, with the Fusion Hybrid as the company's sales bellwether.

The aforementioned Nissan Leaf electric vehicle sales fell 15 percent to 1,070 units after boosting sales 34 percent in 2014 compared to 2013.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/02/05/january-2015-green-car-sales/

Can we replace some useless class in school with "how to plan for the future"

This is why NOTHING that happens this year will have ANY impact on the 2016 election, aside from news involving a penis.

Americans do not remember more than 2 weeks ago and cant plan for more than 2 weeks from now.

Bridgegate? WTF was that? But remember how Clinton got a blowjob!?

Ask 10 people on the street who performed at the superbowl last year and 2 years ago. No fucking clue. But Janet Jackson and Timberlake? Oh yeah.

 

[ivysaur12]

From Thomas's dissent from the stay application in Alabama (Strange v. Searcy):

http://documents.buzzfeed.com/14A840.pdf

Those denials fol- lowed this Court’s decision in October not to review seven petitions seeking further review of lower court judgments invalidating state marriage laws. Although I disagreed with the decisions to deny those applications, Armstrong v. Brenner, ante, p. ___; Wilson v. Condon, ante, p. ___; Moser v. Marie, ante, p. ___, I acknowledge that there was at least an argument that the October decision justified an inference that the Court would be less likely to grant a writ of certiorari to consider subsequent petitions. That argument is no longer credible. The Court has now granted a writ of certiorari to review these important issues and will do so by the end of the Term.

Yet rather than treat like applicants alike, the Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to pre- serve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op., at 25–26). This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is.

Thomas, joined by Scalia. Now, why Alito and Roberts might not have signed on to the dissent, but still might have dissent privately to the stay application, I find it very interesting that Alito has not signed on with them (there are other reasons Roberts might not want to dissent publicly as the Chief Justice).

FUN! (Also, Thomas is right: it's over)

 

[HylianTom]

I think Alabama is a good demonstration that if the GOP thinks this is going away with a SCOTUS ruling, they're hugely mistaken. This is going to be an issue that continues to give and give..

 

[Aaron Strife]

Cmon SCOTUS, bring us gay marriage and keep Obamacare intact and it'll be a good note to close out Obama's presidency.

I could see a renewed push for a federal marriage amendment in June.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/king-burwell-supreme-court-obamacare

This case is an embarrassment all around.

I set out to track down the plaintiffs to hear in their own words why they had decided to take part in the case, and it soon became evident that CEI had struggled to find suitable candidates. Three of the four plaintiffs are nearly eligible for Medicare, meaning their objections to Obamacare will soon be moot. Two of them appear to qualify for hardship exemptions—that is, they are not forced to acquire insurance or pay fines because even with a subsidy insurance would eat up too much of their incomes—so it's unclear how Obamacare had burdened them. These two plaintiffs seemed driven by their political opposition to President Obama; one has called him the "anti-Christ" and said he won election by getting "his Muslim people to vote for him." Yet most curious of all, one of the plaintiffs did not recall exactly how she'd been recruited for the case and seemed unaware of the possible consequences if she wins. Told that millions could lose their health coverage if the Supreme Court rules in her favor, she said that she didn't want this to happen.

But she is politically active. A prolific writer of letters to the editor denouncing gay rights activists, Levy was also a donor to California's anti-gay-marriage ballot amendment Proposition 8. In 2013, she helped to organize a rally outside the headquarters of the local Boy Scouts council in Richmond to protest the organization's plan to consider allowing gay kids to join (which eventually was adopted). You can see her here:

When I asked her if she realized that her lawsuit could potentially wipe out health coverage for millions, she looked befuddled. "I don't want things to be more difficult for people," she said. "I don't like the idea of throwing people off their health insurance.

Levy was under the impression that if the case prevailed, someone would surely fix the insurance situation, probably at the local level. "I think [Virginia's Democratic Gov.] Terry McAuliffe wants to expand Medicaid," she remarked. She didn't know that the Medicaid expansion was part of Obamacare, or that the same forces backing her lawsuit have opposed this expansion in her state. She was also unaware that there is no Plan B in the works to rescue the people who could lose their insurance if her case is successful.

I asked King what he got out of the case. He replied that the only benefit he would receive from the case was the satisfaction of smashing Obamacare, which he believes bilks hardworking taxpayers to support welfare recipients. He said he doesn't care if millions of Americans lose their health coverage, because "they're probably not paying for it anyway."

Unlike most of the people who could suffer if his lawsuit succeeds, King may soon have his insurance problems relieved by a different government health care plan. He'll be eligible for Medicare in October.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Walker's troll game is pretty good

https://twitter.com/GovWalker/status/564849755541766144

 

[bananas]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/king-burwell-supreme-court-obamacare

This case is an embarrassment all around.

reads like a dril tweet or some shit.

 

[Wilsongt]

And Metapod keeps arguing for this charade. For shame.

 

[Metaphoreus]

And Metapod keeps arguing for this charade. For shame.

That the legal arguments are distinct from the individual plaintiffs should go without saying. The former are legal arguments; the latter are people. It's not even close.

I'll add that a dismissal based on standing would be lame, as it always is.

 

[ivysaur12]

That the legal arguments are distinct from the individual plaintiffs should go without saying. The former are legal arguments; the latter are people. It's not even close.

I'll add that a dismissal based on standing would be lame, as it always is.

Eh, standing is important. I honestly believe that, outside of what I think of King. I would love for King to be dismissed on standing for its political implications. Separate of that, standing is functionally important.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Eh, standing is important. I honestly believe that, outside of what I think of King. I would love for King to be dismissed on standing for its political implications. Separate of that, standing is functionally important.

I agree standing is important, but it's still lame when a case is dismissed for lack of standing, especially once the case has made it to the Supreme Court. C'mon, wouldn't you have rather the Court addressed Prop. 8 a couple of years ago?

 

[ivysaur12]

I agree standing is important, but it's still lame when a case is dismissed for lack of standing, especially once the case has made it to the Supreme Court. C'mon, wouldn't you have rather the Court addressed Prop. 8 a couple of years ago?

In that political environment? Probably not. In retrospect, it probably would've struck down all marriage bans, but at the time, I was very hopeful it would've been dismissed on standing grounds.

Also, I don't love the idea that ProtectMarriage.com (which, like, they didn't have a real name?) could somehow inject themselves as having Article 3 standing. If a state government decides not to pursue an appeal, that has to be respected, versus an outside group attempting to inject themselves as defenders of said law.

EDIT: Oh my god their website is still up and that's sad.

EDIT 2: I will also say by taking up the cases now, there's a real possibility for at least a 6-3 majority (or even a 7-2 majority) for the decision that would give it more weight.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Also, I don't love the idea that ProtectMarriage.com (which, like, they didn't have a real name?) could somehow inject themselves as having Article 3 standing. If a state government decides not to pursue an appeal, that has to be respected, versus an outside group attempting to inject themselves as defenders of said law.

I agree with the dissenters in Hollingsworth regarding standing:

Under California law, a proponent has the authority to appear in court and assert the State's interest in defending an enacted initiative when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so. The State deems such an appearance essential to the integrity of its initiative process. Yet the Court today concludes that this state-defined status and this state-conferred right fall short of meeting federal requirements because the proponents cannot point to a formal delegation of authority that tracks the requirements of the Restatement of Agency. But the State Supreme Court's definition of proponents' powers is binding on this Court. And that definition is fully sufficient to establish the standing and adversity that are requisites for justiciability under Article III of the United States Constitution.

In my view Article III does not require California, when deciding who may appear in court to defend an initiative on its behalf, to comply with the Restatement of Agency or with this Court's view of how a State should make its laws or structure its government. The Court's reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials — the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court's decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation. See M. Waters, Initiative and Referendum Almanac 12 (2003). In my submission, the Article III requirement for a justiciable case or controversy does not prevent proponents from having their day in court.

One of the purposes of standing doctrine is to make sure that the parties arguing on either side of a question are really adverse and will give the Court the best arguments in favor of each side. I think the sponsors of the initiative better fulfilled that purpose than did the state government, even though the Supreme Court held that only the state government could pursue an appeal (thereby neutering the initiative process when a claim cognizable in federal court can be raised against it).

 

[thefro]

Vox just put up a 2-part interview with President Obama that's fantastic
http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-domestic-policy-transcript

http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-foreign-policy-transcript

 

[Aaron Strife]

Vox just put up a 2-part interview with President Obama that's fantastic
http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-domestic-policy-transcript

http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-foreign-policy-transcript

I think what I really appreciate about Obama in general is how nuanced he is. He looks at the facts, makes the best assumption based on those facts but leaves wiggle room for disagreements and is open to the possibility he might be wrong. Sometimes that makes him appear weak or ineffective as a leader, to me it just makes him seem like a rational, thinking human being. Too much of American politics centers around how big the president's balls are and that mentality produced pretty disastrous results in the Bush era.

 

[ivysaur12]

I agree with the dissenters in Hollingsworth regarding standing:



One of the purposes of standing doctrine is to make sure that the parties arguing on either side of a question are really adverse and will give the Court the best arguments in favor of each side. I think the sponsors of the initiative better fulfilled that purpose than did the state government, even though the Supreme Court held that only the state government could pursue an appeal (thereby neutering the initiative process when a claim cognizable in federal court can be raised against it).

How many times has the California declined to defend a law that was passed through the initiative process? Prop 8 was such a particularly gross constitutional amendment, but I do wonder how many times AGs from California have just not defended a law they didn't like. I would guess it's exceptionally rare.

And even if you believe that there should be adverse standing, I agree with the majority's wording:

Although most standing cases consider whether a plaintiff has satisfied the requirement when filing suit, Article III demands that an "actual controversy" persist throughout all stages of litigation ... Standing "must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance." ... The parties do not contest that respondents had standing to initiate this case against the California officials responsible for enforcing Proposition 8. But once the District Court issued its order, respondents no longer had any injury to redress, and the state officials chose not to appeal. The only individuals who sought to appeal were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court, but they had not been ordered to do or refrain from doing anything. Their only interest was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law. As this Court has repeatedly held, such a "generalized grievance"—no matter how sincere—is insufficient to confer standing.