Support NeoGAF

[AntoneM]

And then Bams went and won campaigning on hope, change and yes we can.

Which is why he terrified Republicans. Republicans who spent the last 30 years convincing people that government can't do anything and therefore it doesn't matter if you vote.

 

[Aaron Strife]

What are the chances of Democrats distancing themselves from Hilary right before the election?

In presidential elections the presidential nominee is the face of the party. So no. Some Southern guys will run from Obama but Hillary isn't in office (yet) which means she's not as damaged.

 

[adamsappel]

In presidential elections the presidential nominee is the face of the party. So no.

Jimmy Carter's on line 1 and wants to say hi.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Jimmy Carter's on line 1 and wants to say hi.

I would fanboy like crazy.

But let me adjust that to presidential nominee in an open seat, or challenger to an incumbent of the other party.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Speaking of Carter, and by extension the Iran hostage crisis, and by extension anything involving Iran, I have no words.

 

[CygnusXS]

Speaking of Carter, and by extension the Iran hostage crisis, and by extension anything involving Iran, I have no words.

What a bunch of assholes.

 

[thepotatoman]

Speaking of Carter, and by extension the Iran hostage crisis, and by extension anything involving Iran, I have no words.

It's like they don't even care about what Iran is doing as long as they can deny Obama of another achievement.

I mean, they're basically straight up suggesting to Iran to not bother with any of the dismantling of your higher levels of uranium enrichment programs, because we're just going to keep sanctions on you regardless of what happens.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Speaking of Carter, and by extension the Iran hostage crisis, and by extension anything involving Iran, I have no words.

Tom cotton wants about 10 wars.

That's literally what they are calling for.

 

[Jooney]

Speaking of Carter, and by extension the Iran hostage crisis, and by extension anything involving Iran, I have no words.

Gotta hand it to Republicans. No fucks given when it comes to foreign policy.

Remember the post 9/11 halcyon days when seemingly criticising the president's choice of tie would somehow bring lady liberty's character into disrepute? Good times.

 

[Jooney]

The Last Week Tonight segment on US territory voting rights ... Good lord.

Will post a yt link when it's available.

 

[Metaphoreus]

As I foreshadowed a few pages back, Supreme Court revives Notre Dame's Obamacare contraception objections

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday revived the University of Notre Dame's religious objections to the requirement for contraception coverage under President Barack Obama's healthcare law, throwing out a lower court decision in favor of the federal government.

The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision against the South Bend, Indiana-based Roman Catholic university in light of the June 2014 Supreme Court ruling that allowed certain privately owned corporations to seek exemptions from the provision.

Speaking of Carter, and by extension the Iran hostage crisis, and by extension anything involving Iran, I have no words.

I asked this in the main Off-Topic thread, but do we know if this was actually sent to Iranian leaders? Or just posted online?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

As I foreshadowed a few pages back, Supreme Court revives Notre Dame's Obamacare contraception objections





I asked this in the main Off-Topic thread, but do we know if this was actually sent to Iranian leaders? Or just posted online?

Its an Open Letter. They have the internet, they read it.

I believe the president is the only one who has official diplomatic correspondence since he has the power of recognizing ambassadors. They'd have had to send it to the UN representative or something if it was an official letter or something. I could be wrong

 

[Metaphoreus]

Its an Open Letter. They have the internet, they read it.

I understand that, but there's a huge difference between sending a letter to a foreign leader and writing something that merely can be read by the foreign leader, even when the latter purports to address that leader.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I understand that, but there's a huge difference between sending a letter to a foreign leader and writing something that merely can be read by the foreign leader, even when the latter purports to address that leader.

The internet exists. No there isn't.

 

[ivysaur12]

I understand that, but there's a huge difference between sending a letter to a foreign leader and writing something that merely can be read by the foreign leader, even when the latter purports to address that leader.

Not particularly.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=155211934#post155211934

So once, Obama's foreign policy looks like it's working, ISIS is being severely weakened by airstrikes as well as internal forces.

To be honest America is going to forget about ISIS just like they forgot about ebola.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The internet exists. No there isn't.

Yes, there is. It is the difference between private correspondence and a public op-ed.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yes, there is. It is the difference between private correspondence and a public op-ed.

The intent and effect is the same. This is ridiculous minutiae that has no relevance outside of legal speak.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yes, there is. It is the difference between private correspondence and a public op-ed.

There is no practical difference when those who are writing the op-ed know what they will achieve by releasing this correspondence as an "open letter." This is partisan nonsense.

 

[Poodlestrike]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=155211934#post155211934

So once, Obama's foreign policy looks like it's working, ISIS is being severely weakened by airstrikes as well as internal forces.

To be honest America is going to forget about ISIS just like they forgot about ebola.

What's odd about this to me is that Boko Haram has apparently pledged allegiance to ISIS. So maybe the divide isn't as great as it seems.

 

[Coriolanus]

Yes, there is. It is the difference between private correspondence and a public op-ed.

Assume you send a private letter and subsequently immediately publicize the contents. Would the difference remain in place?

 

[pigeon]

I understand that, but there's a huge difference between sending a letter to a foreign leader and writing something that merely can be read by the foreign leader, even when the latter purports to address that leader.

What, in your view, is the meaningful difference?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Assume you send a private letter and subsequently immediately publicize the contents. Would the difference remain in place?

What, in your view, is the meaningful difference?

The distinguishing feature is direct communication with the foreign leaders, regardless of the publicity of the letter's contents.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The distinguishing feature is direct communication with the foreign leaders, regardless of the publicity of the letter's contents.

How does this change the effect of the letter which is what we're discussing and the only really relevant thing.

 

[pigeon]

The distinguishing feature is direct communication with the foreign leaders, regardless of the publicity of the letter's contents.

Sure. What is important about that distinction?

 

[Metaphoreus]

How does this change the effect of the letter which is what we're discussing and the only really relevant thing.

Sure. What is important about that distinction?

Let me suggest a nonpartisan analogy. Let's say that I post on two Internet forums, the second of which includes a section devoted to discussing the first. Let's say that I, as though a child incapable of understanding his emotions, want to communicate to my fellow second-forumgoers that I wish cancer upon one of the folks posting in the first forum (who goes by the moniker "So-and-so"). So, I write a post at the second forum that says: "Dear So-and-so: I wish you would die of cancer." This serves a function (sparking a discussion about the poster or, at the very least, conveying my disgust with his prolixity), even though it isn't communicated to the person on whom I wish cancer. This is like the Senators' open letter if it is not sent to the foreign leaders: it's accessible to them (being open and online), but not directly sent to them. Its purpose is to force a domestic dialogue with (or about) the president, not to open a dialogue with the foreign leaders.

But imagine that I, childlike emotional underdevelopment and all, feel that the message is pointless unless I am certain it is received. So, I send a PM to the person on the first forum on whom I wish cancer: "Dear So-and-so: I wish you would die of cancer." This serves decidedly different functions, including specifically conveying to that poster how I feel about him and opening a direct dialogue between us. This would be like the open letter if it is sent to the foreign leaders: the Senators can be fairly confident of its receipt, and its sending suggests that perhaps the foreign leaders (as opposed to the president) should be involving Congress in negotiations.

 

[AndyD]

Let me suggest a nonpartisan analogy. Let's say that I post on two Internet forums, the second of which includes a section devoted to discussing the first. Let's say that I, as though a child incapable of understanding his emotions, want to communicate to my fellow second-forumgoers that I wish cancer upon one of the folks posting in the first forum (who goes by the moniker "So-and-so"). So, I write a post at the second forum that says: "Dear So-and-so: I wish you would die of cancer." This serves a function (sparking a discussion about the poster or, at the very least, conveying my disgust with his prolixity), even though it isn't communicated to the person on whom I wish cancer. This is like the Senators' open letter if it is not sent to the foreign leaders: it's accessible to them (being open and online), but not directly sent to them. Its purpose is to force a domestic dialogue with (or about) the president, not to open a dialogue with the foreign leaders.

But imagine that I, childlike emotional underdevelopment and all, feel that the message is pointless unless I am certain it is received. So, I send a PM to the person on the first forum on whom I wish cancer: "Dear So-and-so: I wish you would die of cancer." This serves decidedly different functions, including specifically conveying to that poster how I feel about him and opening a direct dialogue between us. This would be like the open letter if it is sent to the foreign leaders: the Senators can be fairly confident of its receipt, and its sending suggests that perhaps the foreign leaders (as opposed to the president) should be involving Congress in negotiations.

That only works if there is a lack of high-profile and media scrutiny to your actions. That is not the case with high level politicians in today's US when speaking on a current event topic.

I see your point on direct communication vs. open publish but that analogy is not very effective. More effective would be to compare other high profile political statements such as anti-american sentiments expressed in speeches, but not in a direct communication with the US.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

The intent and effect is the same. This is ridiculous minutiae that has no relevance outside of legal speak.

You could argue that the intent of a public letter is political posturing for their base while the intent of a private letter is to actually influence the actions of a foreign government.

I'm still not sure there's enough of a distinction there though, especially when the ostensible intent of the letter is to influence / send a message to a foreign government (though I would guess that that is not the actual intent).

 

[Metaphoreus]

That only works if there is a lack of high-profile and media scrutiny to your actions. That is not the case with high level politicians in today's US when speaking on a current event topic.

I see your point on direct communication vs. open publish but that analogy is not very effective. More effective would be to compare other high profile political statements such as anti-american sentiments expressed in speeches, but not in a direct communication with the US.

I'd continue to argue, but it's become apparent that mine is a moot point:

I can't support direct communications like this that bypass (and undermine) the president.

 

[CygnusXS]

Diplomacy in 2015, folks.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I'd continue to argue, but it's become apparent that mine is a moot point:

I can't support direct communications like this that bypass (and undermine) the president.

Wow, that's lame.

(Not you, him.)

 

[WayneMorse]

I'd continue to argue, but it's become apparent that mine is a moot point:

I can't support direct communications like this that bypass (and undermine) the president.

This is a violation of the Logan Act is it not?

 

[Poodlestrike]

This is a violation of the Logan Act is it not?

Technically, as the Senate has to ratify treaties, he's probably authorized. Again, technically.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This is a violation of the Logan Act is it not?

no.

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.

Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.

and tweets aren't negotiations with a foreign power

This isn't treasonous in the slightest, even ignoring US law. Its stupid, dangerous and war mongering but its not treason

 

[WayneMorse]

So the deal happens and then what? There's no way in hell the Senate is going to ratify it, and the letter is correct by saying it won't be known whether the treaty will stick until after the election.

I'm surprised Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker didn't sign the letter though, considering i heard them on NPR a year or two ago complaining about the decreasing role of Congress in foreign affairs.

 

[B-Dubs]

So the deal happens and then what? There's no way in hell the Senate is going to ratify it, and the letter is correct by saying it won't be known whether the treaty will stick until after the election.

I'm surprised Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker didn't sign the letter though, considering i heard them on NPR a year or two ago complaining about the decreasing role of Congress in foreign affairs.

They'll ratify it, quietly when no one is looking. They're just playing to their base, no one actually wants another war except the nuts-o true-believers.

 

[NeoXChaos]

All of this behind-the-scenes agita is the result of Democrats putting every egg they have in the Clinton basket. The reality is that there isn't a plan B if she decides not to run or becomes severely damaged as a candidate in the early days of the race. (This e-mail story does not constitute Clinton being severely damaged but it certainly doesn't bolster her image as she plots when to enter the race.) Yes, Vice President Biden would run if Clinton doesn't. But, Biden -- or Martin O'Malley or anyone else in the potential Democratic field -- is not Clinton, both in terms of her resume and her polling position in the contest.

Every Democrat's hopes of keeping the White House for a third straight term rest on Clinton. And, that reliance on a single candidate is, in and of itself, nerve-wracking for many Democrats. The pressure on Clinton to perform well is impossibly high. And that means that when her candidacy is struggling -- as it is now -- there will be even more than the usual amount of hand-wringing about what's wrong and how she can (and should) fix it.

I heard Clinton is going to address the email controversy this week. Im so happy so we can get off this story.

On the above: going back to 2008 and clinton's ego, she was never not going to run again. No one but Clinton I believe can take down a Bush if(when) it comes to it.

 

[Metaphoreus]

First, a dozen states will call for courts to allow Obama’s executive actions (regarding immigration) to proceed:

In the next few days, approximately a dozen states will call on an appeals court to lift an injunction — imposed by a conservative Texas judge — on President Obama’s executive actions shielding millions from deportation, arguing that they support those actions and see them as being in their economic interest, I’m told.

The move could precipitate an argument among the states over Obama’s policies, and will raise a question: If some states have successfully gotten the courts to block Obama’s actions nationwide, what should happen if other states want those actions to proceed? The bid by these states also could make it more likely that the courts lift the injunction and allow his deportation relief to move forward, at least in some states, while the legal battle over them plays out.

Second, Justices Scalia and Thomas fired some shots over agencies' bows in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, a case decided today. Scalia, in a concurring opinion, said:

[D]espite exempting interpretive rules from notice and comment, the Act provides that “the reviewing court shall . . . interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.” §706 (emphasis added). The Act thus contemplates that courts, not agencies, will authoritatively resolve ambiguities in statutes and regulations. . . .

Heedless of the original design of the APA, we have developed an elaborate law of deference to agencies’ interpretations of statutes and regulations. Never mentioning §706’s directive that the “reviewing court . . . interpret . . . statutory provisions,” we have held that agencies may authoritatively resolve ambiguities in statutes. And never mentioning §706’s directive that the “reviewing court . . . determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action,” we have—relying on a case decided before the APA—held that agencies may authoritatively resolve ambiguities in regulations. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461 (1997).

...

As I have described elsewhere, the rule of Chevron, if it did not comport with the APA, at least was in conformity with the long history of judicial review of executive action, where “tatutory ambiguities . . . were left to reasonable resolution by the Executive.” I am unaware of any such history justifying deference to agency interpretations of its own regulations. And there are weighty reasons to deny a lawgiver the power to write ambiguous laws and then be the judge of what the ambiguity means. I would therefore restore the balance originally struck by the APA with respect to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, not by rewriting the Act in order to make up for Auer, but by abandoning Auer and applying the Act as written. The agency is free to interpret its own regulations with or without notice and comment; but courts will decide—with no deference to the agency—whether that interpretation is correct.

Scalia's argument against deference is limited to where an agency is interpreting its own regulations, so he isn't saying that Chevron (requiring deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes) should be abandoned. Still, his reading of the APA would support reversing Chevron as well as Auer. Thomas' concurring opinion in Perez will be of interest to those interested in political theory. He spends quite a bit of time discussing the structure of the federal government and the reasons for that structure, citing Locke, Montesquieu, and various Framers. Here's a taste of his discussion, from his introduction:

I write separately because these cases call into question the legitimacy of our precedents requiring deference to administrative interpretations of regulations. That line of precedents, beginning with Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. requires judges to defer to agency interpretations of regulations, thus, as happened in these cases, giving legal effect to the interpretations rather than the regulations themselves. Because this doctrine effects a transfer of the judicial power to an executive agency, it raises constitutional concerns. This line of precedents undermines our obligation to provide a judicial check on the other branches, and it subjects regulated parties to precisely the abuses that the Framers sought to prevent.

Here's a bit more:

Fundamentally, the argument about agency expertise is less about the expertise of agencies in interpreting language than it is about the wisdom of according agencies broad flexibility to administer statutory schemes. FN6

FN6. Many decisions of this Court invoke agency expertise as a justification for deference. This argument has its root in the support for administrative agencies that developed during the Progressive Era in this country. The Era was marked by a move from the individualism that had long characterized American society to the concept of a society organized for collective action. That move also reflected a deep disdain for the theory of popular sovereignty. As Woodrow Wilson wrote before he attained the presidency, “Our peculiar American difficulty in organizing administration is not the danger of losing liberty, but the danger of not being able or willing to separate its essentials from its accidents. Our success is made doubtful by that besetting error of ours, the error of trying to do too much by vote.” In President Wilson’s view, public criticism would be beneficial in the formation of overall policy, but “a clumsy nuisance” in the daily life of Government—“a rustic handling delicate machinery.” Reflecting this belief that bureaucrats might more effectively govern the country than the American people, the progressives ushered in significant expansions of the administrative state, ultimately culminating in the New Deal.

EDIT: I forgot all about Thomas' footnote 5:

Today, however, formal rulemaking is the Yeti of administrative law. There are isolated sightings of it in the ratemaking context, but elsewhere it proves elusive.

2d EDIT: And footnote 1

Although the Court has appeared to treat our agency deference regimes as precedents entitled to stare decisis effect, some scholars have noted that they might instead by classified as interpretive tools. Such tools might not be entitled to such effect. Because resolution of that issue is not necessary to my conclusion here, I leave it for another day.

 

[Jooney]

Walker signs right to work bill. WI is the 25th state to do so.

Conservativestreetcred++

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So the deal happens and then what? There's no way in hell the Senate is going to ratify it, and the letter is correct by saying it won't be known whether the treaty will stick until after the election.

I'm surprised Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker didn't sign the letter though, considering i heard them on NPR a year or two ago complaining about the decreasing role of Congress in foreign affairs.

They've been on the Foreign Affairs committee for a while and are probably know negotiations are a good path to go down

They'll ratify it, quietly when no one is looking. They're just playing to their base, no one actually wants another war except the nuts-o true-believers.

They aren't going to ratify any deal. It will be an executive agreement. They need 2/3rds to ratify.

The deal also wont be a treaty either.

 

[Metaphoreus]

More from Cotton:

 

[Coriolanus]

Comedy gold.

 

[Poodlestrike]

More from Cotton:

Well, now he's just being a dick.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

More from Cotton:

How can any one take this condensing prick seriously?

I have a visceral dislike of this man. He's a blatant war monger, he completely aligns himself with the boltons of the world and would be happy and in front of every TV screen if we went to war with Iran.

He got famous for another open letter where he called for NYT reporters to go to jail for revealing info about bush's terrorist tracking program

He also couldn't care less about the Constitution and wants to have NK style punishment of family members for breaking Iran sanctions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/tom-cotton-corruption-of-blood_n_3322251.html

Cotton also seeks to punish any family member of those people, "to include a spouse and any relative to the third degree," including, "parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids," Cotton said.

"There would be no investigation," Cotton said during Wednesday's markup hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "If the prime malefactor of the family is identified as on the list for sanctions, then everyone within their family would automatically come within the sanctions regime as well. It'd be very hard to demonstrate and investigate to conclusive proof."

"Iranian citizens do not have constitutional rights under the United States Constitution," Cotton said. "I sympathize with their plight if they are harmless, innocent civilians in Iran. I doubt that that is often the case."

The Fifth Amendment reads "no person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and makes no distinctions regarding citizenship. In Wong Wing v. United States, the Supreme Court found that noncitizens charged with crimes are protected by the Fifth Amendment, along with the Sixth and 14th Amendments. The case was decided in 1896.

He's insane and likely to be war mongering for the next 20-30 years.

 

[Poodlestrike]

How can any one take this condensing prick seriously?

I have a visceral dislike of this man. He's a blatant war monger, he completely aligns himself with the boltons of the world and would be happy and in front of every TV screen if we went to war with Iran.

He got famous for another open letter where he called for NYT reporters to go to jail for revealing info about bush's terrorist tracking program

He also couldn't care less about the Constitution and wants to have NK style punishment of family members for breaking Iran sanctions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/tom-cotton-corruption-of-blood_n_3322251.html





He's insane and likely to be war mongering for the next 20-30 years.

Yeah, but should we really let a law from 1896 dictate how we no, I can't do it, it's too bad.

 

[B-Dubs]

More from Cotton:

This guy is a straight nutter. There's legitimately insane people with more sense than this guy.

 

[Aaron Strife]

More from Cotton:

"Well Tom Cotton is a woefully underqualified nutbag but Mark Pryor is a poopyhead so"

- Average Arkansas voter, 2014

 

[NeoXChaos]

Email story is killing Clinton in new ppp poll pre-view of Wisconsin.

She only leads O'Malley and Webb 60-1-1

 

[Poodlestrike]

Email story is killing Clinton in new ppp poll pre-view of Wisconsin.

She only leads O'Malley and Webb 60-1-1

...

Not sure if serious.

 

[B-Dubs]

Email story is killing Clinton in new ppp poll pre-view of Wisconsin.

She only leads O'Malley and Webb 60-1-1

Am I reading this right? She's only up by 59 points? DOOMED