• 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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Abinash117

Member
http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...ublicans-closely-following-clinton-email-news

A Pew Research survey released Monday shows only 16 percent of Democrats said they were following the news that Clinton exclusively used a private email account for official business while secretary of State.

An even smaller amount of independents, 11 percent, say they are following the story.
By contrast, Pew found 34 percent of Republicans are closely following the news, with 44 percent of conservative Republicans following it closely.
Click to expand...

Looks like very few people really care.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Uh oh: J. Hanen orders DOJ back to Brownsville on 3/19 to explain “serious” 100k DACA grants

Josh Blackman said:
Judge Hanen is not happy with DOJ, in light of their advisory revealing that they granted over 100,000 extended DACA applications for 3, rather than 2 years. In an order issued moments ago, Judge Hanen stated that he would not rule on any pending motions–including the motion for a stay–until DOJ attends a hearing in Brownsville on March 19 to explain these “serious[]” matters. And they will have to “fully explain” what happened.
Click to expand...

Here's the order.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8177969/senate-medical-marijuana

  • Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) on Tuesday will introduce a bill that would legalize medical marijuana at the federal level.
  • The bill would reclassify marijuana in the federal scheduling system from schedule 1 to 2.
  • The bill would also permanently prohibit the federal government from shutting down medical marijuana operations in states where pot is legal for medicinal purposes.
 
E

ErasureAcer

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8177969/senate-medical-marijuana

  • Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) on Tuesday will introduce a bill that would legalize medical marijuana at the federal level.
  • The bill would reclassify marijuana in the federal scheduling system from schedule 1 to 2.
  • The bill would also permanently prohibit the federal government from shutting down medical marijuana operations in states where pot is legal for medicinal purposes.
Click to expand...

Does this stand any chance in the House? Or Senate for that matter?
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes but he went to Harvard and served in the Iraq War and said Gitmo prisoners can burn in hell so he's going places.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
APKmetsfan said:
No but it gets people on the record and shows there's a constituency for it. It also gives the president leeway to not go after states
Click to expand...

I never understand getting people on record thing. Everyone knows most Republicans and some democrats don't support weed and even if they did; they probably not going to vote for it. I don't see how them voting against it is going to make constitutes that much likely to not vote for that congressman. Some people might really care, but imo people can be 'tribalistic' and partisan. They'll make up some excuse or convince themselves to vote for that candidate because he/she is from the same party. Kinda like what happened in the 2012 elections. I guess it depends on the issue, but still.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Metaphoreus said:
More from Cotton:

8GahTzY.png
Click to expand...

uqjE2Aq.jpg
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Voters want change. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/nbcwsj-national-poll-voters-want-change-115916.html?hp=l4_4

American voters are looking for change, according to a new poll.
In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Monday, 59 percent of voters said they prefer a candidate “who will bring greater changes” to a candidate who is “more experienced and tested.”
Click to expand...

In 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama campaigned on a message of “hope and change,” 55 percent of voters answered similarly.
A “change” election could be bad news for potential candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, both of whom represent well-established political families and have been in the public spotlight for years.
Fifty-one percent of voters told NBC/WSJ that Clinton represents ideas of the past, but only 24 percent of Democrats said that Clinton does not represent change. In comparison, 44 percent of voters — and 73 percent of Democrats — say that while Clinton may be a name from the past, she will offer ideas for the future.
Click to expand...

In total, 60 percent of voters said that Bush does not represent change, while 42 percent of Republicans voiced that criticism. Twenty-seven percent, including 49 percent of Republican, said that Bush will offer new, innovative ideas.
Republican voters were not keen on Common Core and immigration reform, with 52 percent of GOP primary voters giving an unfavorable rating to the education standards and 62 percent opposing the creation of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented migrants.
Click to expand...

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is leading the pack among likely GOP 2016 contenders, with the backing of 56 percent of Republican voters. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker followed closely behind with 53 percent of votes.
Eighty-six percent of Democrats said they would back Clinton if she ran for executive office.
Click to expand...


#email, #Benghazi, #what difference does it make
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/zarif-senators-letter_n_6834296.html

Iran's foreign minister has responded to the letter.

The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
Click to expand...
 
B

Black Mamba

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



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:



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:



Here's a bit more:



EDIT: I forgot all about Thomas' footnote 5:



2d EDIT: And footnote 1
Click to expand...

And yet they all agreed to defer to the executive in a 9-0 unanimous decision! Of course, the issue was that both parties essentially agreed that the rule was interpretive (even though I guess the other side tried to argue it wasn't at the last moment?) and so that's why they all deferred.

Basically, from what I understand, the Court ruled that interpretive rules are never subject to Notice and Comment and this is extended to amendments or interpretive changes to Interpretive Rules (so long as they are correctly interpretive rules).

Which the APA kind of explicitly says. And I really don't see how the APA and Chevron are much related at all. APA (at least the part at issue here) is about how regulations are formed by agencies. It's the rules for rule-making. Chevron is all about how to interpret a statute.

Scalia is basically saying Chevron isn't relevant here and I agree. Had the Court decided whether this rule was Interpretive or Legislative and come out on the latter, Chevron shouldn't matter. I think it would be unanimous (should they all agree to that fact) that an agency cannot change interpretation of its own Legislative Rule without Notice and Comment. That is not the kind of deference the APA affords and nor should the Courts. I also see no indication Scalia would overturn Chevron in his text.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
He's right however it's pretty obvious that the next step of this circus is for republicans to say "the constitution rules, not international law." It's the perfect soap box for them to attack Obama lol. Not that I agree with them.
Click to expand...

Which would play well with their base and burn them with absolutely everybody else.

Win win, really.

Also

The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”
Click to expand...

Pwnt.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
It's early and thus doesn't matter

I think Hillary will have a fairly comfortable victory. Similar to 2012 where Romney was close enough that you couldn't predict an Obama win with absolute certainty, but most of us knew what was up.

Well, except Diablos who spent all his time freaking out for no reason and PD who hoped against all rational belief that Romney would somehow pull out a win in Ohio with all his "Romney's gonna pull a hail-Mary" comments (which as we learned wouldn't have made a difference in who won the election, not to mention having to pull a hail-Mary generally doesn't mean you're in a good position for anything)
Click to expand...
Obama's first debate performance was a tragedy, it's a miracle he bounced back from that. I know most incumbent Presidents always fuck up the first debate, but he was exceptionally bad.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Diablos said:
Obama's first debate performance was a tragedy, it's a miracle he bounced back from that. I know most incumbent Presidents always fuck up the first debate, but he was exceptionally bad.
Click to expand...

Yes he was my friend. I agree. Axelrod and Plouffe were spinning their heads at the media to find some excuse to why he bombed that debate. He BOMBED it Aaron.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Black Mamba said:
And yet they all agreed to defer to the executive in a 9-0 unanimous decision!
Click to expand...

Two points: first, whether to defer to the agency's interpretation of its own regulation was not a question presented in this case. The Court was called upon to decide only whether a new interpretation of an agency's regulation, which deviates significantly from an interpretation adopted previously, must comply with the APA's notice-and-comment requirements. That's the only question the Court answered; it did not answer any question about deference. Second, only the judgment was unanimous, not the rationale. That is, the nine justices agreed that the lower court's holding should be reversed, but only six justices joined the majority opinion in full. Scalia specifically stated that the Court should not defer to the agency's interpretation of its own regulation, Thomas recognized that so deferring raised important constitutional questions which warranted a new look, and Alito agreed that those two justices at least offered "substantial reasons" to dump some existing doctrine.

Black Mamba said:
Which the APA kind of explicitly says. And I really don't see how the APA and Chevron are much related at all. APA (at least the part at issue here) is about how regulations are formed by agencies. It's the rules for rule-making. Chevron is all about how to interpret a statute.

Scalia is basically saying Chevron isn't relevant here and I agree. Had the Court decided whether this rule was Interpretive or Legislative and come out on the latter, Chevron shouldn't matter.
Click to expand...

Scalia clearly explains how Chevron, Auer, and the APA are related:

J. Scalia said:
The APA exempts interpretive rules from these requirements. §553(b)(A). But this concession to agencies was meant to be more modest in its effects than it is today. For despite 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. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842–843 (1984). 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, Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410 (1945)—held that agencies may authoritatively resolve ambiguities in regulations. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461 (1997).
Click to expand...

Scalia would agree that Chevron does not apply in this case, which involved an agency interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, not an agency interpretation of an ambiguous statute. But his remarks show that he believes both Chevron (for statutes) and Auer (for regulations) are inconsistent with the direction of the APA that the "reviewing court . . . interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action."

EDIT:

PhoenixDark said:
He's right however it's pretty obvious that the next step of this circus is for republicans to say "the constitution rules, not international law." It's the perfect soap box for them to attack Obama lol. Not that I agree with them.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that he is right. In fact, I suggest here that the Republicans' letter may have been intended as the first step in building a case to invalidate the agreement in accordance with international law.
 
A

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
ivysaur12 said:
Wow. Ayotte, Kirk, Johnson, and Toomey all signed the Iran letter. Really?
Click to expand...
I'm disappointed in my senator, Ayotte. She's typically a moderate Republican.

My town is having elections tomorrow. I learned tonight there's an empty position for budget committee. I've asked a few people in town to vote for me as a write-in. With <6,000 people it's possible!
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
ivysaur12 said:
Wow. Ayotte, Kirk, Johnson, and Toomey all signed the Iran letter. Really?
Click to expand...

I'm still not seeing anything reliable on whether or not Portman signed it.

(I'm gonna be voting against him next year regardless, but fuck, I want the vote to not entirely be because Strickland is the "not batshit" choice.)
 
C

cooljeanius

Member
Hey has anyone posted the bit about Lindsey Graham threatening to invoke martial law if ever elected president?

The Concord Monitor said:
In Concord yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he’s more worried than ever about an attack on the United States, and if he were to become president he wouldn’t let lawmakers leave Washington until cuts in defense spending are restored.

“I would literally use the military to keep (legislators) in if I had to,” he said.

The South Carolina Republican hasn’t committed to running for president, but said he’s very close to making that decision. He came to the old Concord Snowshoe Club yesterday for what the Concord City Republican Committee hopes will become a regular series of candidates attending Politics and Pies forums.
Click to expand...
Full story: http://www.concordmonitor.com/commu...arolina-sen-graham-stresses-national-security

Anyways, all hail Dictator Graham! (lol)
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
PhoenixDark said:
I was under the impression this is not a treaty.
Click to expand...

The CRS paper I link to in the post I linked to states that what is considered a "treaty" under international law is not the same as what is considered a "treaty" under the Constitution:

CRS said:
However, the word treaty does not have the same meaning in the United States and in international law. Under international law, a &#8216;&#8216;treaty&#8217;&#8217; is any legally binding agreement between nations. In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made &#8216;&#8216;by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate&#8217;&#8217; (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as &#8216;&#8216;executive agreements&#8217;&#8217; in the United States, but they are considered treaties and therefore binding under international law.
Click to expand...
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
cooljeanius said:
Hey has anyone posted the bit about Lindsey Graham threatening to invoke martial law if ever elected president?

Anyways, all hail Dictator Graham! (lol)
Click to expand...

Dunno man, would be hilarious to see Bams take the same measures, announcing them in a speech that went "following the brilliant idea of a man far wiser than myself, the prestigious Senator Lindsay Graham, you bitches ain't leaving that thing until you start acting like adults".

Also that aint exactly martial law. Don't even know what that is, tbh.
 
A

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
Local politics are hilarious.

After I asked some people on Facebook to write me in for the Budget Committee tomorrow, one of the two people I tagged decided to run now and the other person wrote a status giving his support! I'm feeling disliked but amused at the same time.
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
B_sucWPXAAAxLrl.jpg:large


#bothpartiesarethesame
Click to expand...

Speaking of Wisconsin

https://www.facebook.com/russfeingold/posts/10152804710623215

Friends,

As I complete my final week at the State Department, I am so grateful to President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the opportunity to serve our country and represent America’s ideals in one of the most challenging yet promising regions of Africa.

After I leave the State Department this week, I will spend portions of 2015 teaching international relations and law at Stanford University. For most of the rest of this year, I will be living at my home in Middleton, Wisconsin, from where I will travel the state extensively. I will listen carefully to my fellow Wisconsinites talk about their concerns, especially those involving their economic well-being. I will also seek their counsel on how I can best further serve my country and the state I love.

-Russ
Click to expand...
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
The CRS paper I link to in the post I linked to states that what is considered a "treaty" under international law is not the same as what is considered a "treaty" under the Constitution:
Click to expand...

So...the republicans don't have much of an argument then correct? Also with respect to treaties under US constitutional law, technically it's not required since the president can unilaterally ratify a treaty correct? Just asking, I'm no expert.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
PhoenixDark said:
So...the republicans don't have much of an argument then correct? Also with respect to treaties under US constitutional law, technically it's not required since the president can unilaterally ratify a treaty correct? Just asking, I'm no expert.
Click to expand...

I don't know much more than what I just read in that CRS paper, but based on that, I'd say the Republicans have at least two arguments that the agreement would be invalid (or could be invalidated) in accordance with the Vienna Convention. First, under the Senate's OLC opinion from 1975, a Republican president could argue that because Iran should have reasonably known about the constitutional defect with Obama's agreement (on account of the letter), that defect was manifest (and the defect is of "fundamental importance" since it's a question of Constitutional import). Consequently, the agreement would come within the exception to the general rule that internal policies cannot invalidate a treaty under international law. Second, under the Convention's definition of "manifest," a Republican president could argue that Iran did not "conduct itself . . . in good faith" when it summarily rejected the Senators' letter; and that had Iran "conduct[ed] itself . . . in good faith," the problem would have been "objectively evident" to it. Again, this would mean the agreement comes within the exception that permits a nation to invalidate a treaty based on internal policies.

But, again, you should take the above with a grain of salt. I'd like to hear more from someone better versed in international law.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
But, again, you should take the above with a grain of salt. I'd like to hear more from someone better versed in international law.
Click to expand...

You should look into international law. it's one of the most grotesquely depressing topics, as far as modern law is concerned.

Gimme 17 more months and i'll complete my postgrad on international law (assuming teachers dont start a strike again), then i'll get back to you on that.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So Netanyahu has an election coming up. Does anyone know how he's fairing against the challenger so far?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom