• 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.
So the other branches pick up the slack. The executive interprets its authority as broadly as possible, and this is really hard to check because actually nobody wants to check it when the alternative is relying on a useless Congress, so the Court is often going to end up agreeing that this is how we've got to do things now.

That's the point of contention. As you've mentioned, the SC has final say, and it is being used more often, which means that the shift is occurring towards it. This would be demonstrated particularly well if that obamacare lawsuit end up as a loss for the administration.

This also opens up a whole side argument about how the executive still gets the power shift due to the capacity to indicate new SC judges, but that's far more meta.
 
I wouldn't underestimate Cruz in the primaries. He won't be the nominee but I think he's the most talented hyper conservative in the race. Unlike Jindal/Huckabee/Santorum/Carson/etc he can raise money, plus he's a great debater. I'd expect the clown candidates to fall off the wagon early, leaving 3-5 remainders for the winner take all contests after the early states (Iowa, SC, NH, etc). Bush, Walker, Paul, Cruz, and perhaps Perry or a woman.

I thought Paul would be the defacto leader of the fringe candidates but he's shown he isn't ready for prime time with various fuck ups (plagiarism).
 

ivysaur12

Banned
I think Cruz will last longer than people expect, but he won't be the nominee. He also really needs to get his polling numbers up in Iowa, which I guess is why he's doing this at Liberty.

He really needs to win or come in second in Iowa to be competitive.
 

Touchdown

Banned

YES

a75a4fe35c.gif
 

Gotchaye

Member
That's the point of contention. As you've mentioned, the SC has final say, and it is being used more often, which means that the shift is occurring towards it. This would be demonstrated particularly well if that obamacare lawsuit end up as a loss for the administration.

This also opens up a whole side argument about how the executive still gets the power shift due to the capacity to indicate new SC judges, but that's far more meta.

I suppose I see that more as a shift to executive power because the Court has always had final say in this sense. It doesn't matter whether Congress or the president is the one putting forth the policy it's judging, right? Since Marbury the Court has positioned itself as the ultimate authority on what the law is. The outside limitations on the judiciary's power are more about its inability to micromanage, and I guess if it pisses enough people off a president can get away with ignoring or packing it.

But my sense is that the Court isn't doing an unusual amount of policy-making in practice. Mostly it defers to the executive. At most it's striking down laws, which it's always done, but it's not really crafting new policy the way it was during segregation. And it's by-and-large allowing the executive to use its power in somewhat novel ways. Gay marriage is the only thing that's coming to mind where the judiciary is telling the rest of the government (well, state governments in this case) that it's got to do something, but clearly this is well within the tradition of civil rights jurisprudence.
 
Why were the Dems running as GOP-lite? To me it seems Reps wouldn't vote for someone who is lite of anything same for Dems. I heard Dems that were in the south was pretty much voted out, including blue dog Democrats. I think Elizabeth has a lot of influence now, and because of that I think that Democrats might get a lot more liberal( read somewhere about changing their focus, highlighting that their policies was on the ballots.).
 

benjipwns

Banned
That's the point of contention. As you've mentioned, the SC has final say, and it is being used more often, which means that the shift is occurring towards it.
It's not really, the power is concentrating within the agencies, not any of the public facing aspects of the government. It just seems that way because of the hyper partisan 24/7 sports coverage.

TR issued over a thousand executive orders, Taft in his single term did 700+, Wilson almost 2000, Harding issued 500, Coolidge 1200, Hoover almost a thousand, FDR issued 3500, Truman 907.

Since then no President has issued more than Eisenhowers 484. Obama is actually near the bottom:
Reagan: 381
Clinton: 364
Nixon: 346
Johnson: 325
Carter: 320
W. Bush: 291
Kennedy: 214
Obama: 194
Ford: 169
H.W. Bush: 166

In the last term, the Supreme Court issued 75 opinions, with every justice except Sotomeyer in the majority 84+% of the time. Kagan was in the majority more than Thomas and almost as much as Alito. Nobody cares about SC cases that are 9-0, 8-1 or even 7-2 (Which part of the last ACA case was, and Citizens United, and Bush v. Gore,etc.) just like nobody cares about Idaho or Utah statewide elections because the R is going to get 70% of the vote.

As late was the mid 1980's the Court was issuing 150+ opinions a term. In the late 1800s to early 1900s the court was issuing what seemed like 300+ opinions a term. With 500 of them written by Hughes.

Meanwhile the Federal Register:
GR_PR_080410_21Big2.jpg


And the corresponding jobs devoted to those pages:
wPvqBbc.gif


That's APA stuff.

And it's mostly on Congress, they aren't passing laws that say "the EPA should shoot anyone who litters" anymore as much as they are passing ones that say "the EPA should create the appropriate regulations pertaining to the distribution of lead contents into litters bodies."
 
Got and email this morning saying Patrick Murphy is running for Senate here in Florida.

Its gonna be him and Grayson in the primary. As much as I like grayson he's gonna lose in the general and could hurt Clinton here.

I think he's our best shot. He's not too progressive but I can see him shifting as time goes on, he's pretty left on Social Security and seems like that's what he's gonna run on which IMO is smart for a dem primary in florida. Grayson's base isn't likely to show up in august like clinton/murphy who wants to solidify that south florida support. He's also young so if he gets in I think he's got a lot of time there which would be great as Nelson may not even have another term in the Senate which would give two red seats from a blue state (He's only 31 years old!).

We also need more people like this in the senate

 
To state the obvious, getting shit done is only part of his job.

The other part is preventing the other side from pushing their agenda.

Which he performed, and continues to perform, quite well.

I want to point out that by this metric the Republicans from the day after the ACA was passed until now have been the best performers of all time. Of all time.
 
I want to point out that by this metric the Republicans from the day after the ACA was passed until now have been the best performers of all time. Of all time.

Yerp.
Shame they also ran on demolishing the ACA and all the other crap.

And that a significant part of their base is batshit insane obv.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Well defunding obamacare be part of the 2016 election or will the republicans pretend it doesn't exist?

I don't think that will come into play until after the King decision. Depending on how that goes we either go towards a desperate race to quickly fix the law, or another wave of assaults from various angles, defunding included.
 
I don't think that will come into play until after the King decision. Depending on how that goes we either go towards a desperate race to quickly fix the law, or another wave of assaults from various angles, defunding included.

At what point is aca so entrenched that they can no longer benefit from claiming its evil?

All the fear mongering has been proven wrong, what straws are left to grasp?

It reminds me of the wii u chalk board
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Got and email this morning saying Patrick Murphy is running for Senate here in Florida.

Its gonna be him and Grayson in the primary. As much as I like grayson he's gonna lose in the general and could hurt Clinton here.

I think he's our best shot. He's not too progressive but I can see him shifting as time goes on, he's pretty left on Social Security and seems like that's what he's gonna run on which IMO is smart for a dem primary in florida. Grayson's base isn't likely to show up in august like clinton/murphy who wants to solidify that south florida support. He's also young so if he gets in I think he's got a lot of time there which would be great as Nelson may not even have another term in the Senate which would give two red seats from a blue state (He's only 31 years old!).

We also need more people like this in the senate

I know I've said bae before, but that picture actually is incredibly sexy for some reason that I can't explain?
 
Not to bore anyone with my dumb Facebook conversations, but here's how it went:

M4ChE47.jpg


TGZlluw.jpg


The sad thing is that this is one of my more intelligent Republican friends.

And I just noticed that I accidentally left his in first name in one post. Eh, whatev.
hahaha this fucking guy.

You didn't once say republicans hate black people, you merely stated a fact. The Tip O'Neill shout out is almost too good, like a perfect troll jab Benji or I would throw. I bet he'd also claim Reagan never raised taxes, after giving O'Neill dap. Come on.

As I said in the SAS thread, democrats have taken the black voted for granted for decades. We don't see them bending over backwards to address inner city issues like they do for Hispanics or gay people. I don't say that as a means of dividing/being bitter about other minorities, it's just a reality. I'd love to see these career politicians held to a higher standard by black people. In fact, by ALL people.
 
http://www.theonion.com/articles/wh...lMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

Texas senator Ted Cruz announced Monday that he will run for president in 2016, becoming the first Republican politician to officially declare his candidacy. Here is what you should know about the first-term senator:

Political Positions: Deafening
Ethnicity: White enough
Supporters: Those people from high school who got married when they were 18
Speaks: Spanish, English, Tongues
Campaign Slogan: “I’m Ted Cruz”
Likelihood Of Becoming President: Huckabeesque
Campaign Platform: Be a distraction for a few months
Largest Obstacles To Nomination: Scott Walker, Rand Paul, five seconds of scrutiny
Could Be Fun To Watch As Campaign Sputters Along: Sure
Number Of Presidential Runs Left In Him: Ugh, at least three or four
 

Wilsongt

Member
http://www.theonion.com/articles/wh...lMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

Texas senator Ted Cruz announced Monday that he will run for president in 2016, becoming the first Republican politician to officially declare his candidacy. Here is what you should know about the first-term senator:

Political Positions: Deafening
Ethnicity: White enough
Supporters: Those people from high school who got married when they were 18
Speaks: Spanish, English, Tongues
Campaign Slogan: “I’m Ted Cruz”
Likelihood Of Becoming President: Huckabeesque
Campaign Platform: Be a distraction for a few months
Largest Obstacles To Nomination: Scott Walker, Rand Paul, five seconds of scrutiny
Could Be Fun To Watch As Campaign Sputters Along: Sure
Number Of Presidential Runs Left In Him: Ugh, at least three or four

It's sad that The Onion can no longer be a parody site given our current government.
 
hahaha this fucking guy.

You didn't once say republicans hate black people, you merely stated a fact. The Tip O'Neill shout out is almost too good, like a perfect troll jab Benji or I would throw. I bet he'd also claim Reagan never raised taxes, after giving O'Neill dap. Come on.

As I said in the SAS thread, democrats have taken the black voted for granted for decades. We don't see them bending over backwards to address inner city issues like they do for Hispanics or gay people. I don't say that as a means of dividing/being bitter about other minorities, it's just a reality. I'd love to see these career politicians held to a higher standard by black people. In fact, by ALL people.

Individual Republicans take attacks on the party so damn personally. In a follow up comment, I said to him that I didn't think he was racist (which I genuinely don't think he is), but that the party as a whole undeniably takes advantage of racial tension to appeal to a certain set of voters. Republicans poll terribly with every single minority group, not just black people. It's not a massive left-wing conspiracy. It's a very obvious reality.

Republicans are so fucking terrified of being considered racist, even by proxy, that they refuse to even acknowledge that it exists within the party.

SAS pointed out a very real problem with the Democratic Party, but the stupidest solution imaginable. And every time a dumb black person like SAS makes a dumb political statement that's contrary to what most people expect black people to say, dumb white Republicans can't get enough of it.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Chris Geidner ‏@chrisgeidner 4m4 minutes ago
Virginia's Rep. Scott Rigell wants a Supreme Court app. Breyer is getting excited.

Swipe right is you agree with the opinion, swipe right if you disagree. If you and the opinion are a match...
 
Swipe right is you agree with the opinion, swipe right if you disagree. If you and the opinion are a match...

I really think their opposition to filming is people will lose this mythical respect for the high debate quality of arguments.

They're talking point laced debates, thomas sleeps through and which they make jokes about. Its a bit different when you have the aura of respectability from a grandiose building but watching it on CSPAN would have people like John Stewart make fun of these people like they rightfully should/
 

RSP

Member
PoliGAF, forgive my European ignorance, but I have a question:

Could Bill Clinton run for president again in 2016, and if yes: what kind of chance would he have?
 
PoliGAF, forgive my European ignorance, but I have a question:

Could Bill Clinton run for president again in 2016, and if yes: what kind of chance would he have?

He can't but he'd probably win. The most anyone can serve is 10 years. And they'd have to be VP for less than two and win two elections. If you serve 2 full terms you can't run again, any you can't be VP either.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
PoliGAF, forgive my European ignorance, but I have a question:

Could Bill Clinton run for president again in 2016, and if yes: what kind of chance would he have?

Nope.

22nd Amendment

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
 

HylianTom

Banned
PoliGAF, forgive my European ignorance, but I have a question:

Could Bill Clinton run for president again in 2016, and if yes: what kind of chance would he have?
No, he's term-limited by the Constitution's 22nd Amendment.

(I suspect that he'd win easily if he were able to run.)

Swipe right is you agree with the opinion, swipe right if you disagree. If you and the opinion are a match...
I could make a skim milk friend-zone joke here..
 

RSP

Member
Cool - thanks for the reply. Would personally love to see him in office again. I thought one could not run for more than two consecutive terms, and I think there were a few presidents who had three or four terms (FDR if I recall correctly). Hence the question.
 
Cool - thanks for the reply. Would personally love to see him in office again. I thought one could not run for more than two consecutive terms, and I think there were a few presidents who had three or four terms (FDR if I recall correctly). Hence the question.
Grover Cleveland was president for two non-consecutive terms but not more than that (which is why Obama is the 44th president but only the 43rd person to be elected). FDR is the only president elected more than twice (four times) and the 22nd Amendment was adopted after his presidency to stop it from happening again.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Cool - thanks for the reply. Would personally love to see him in office again. I thought one could not run for more than two consecutive terms, and I think there were a few presidents who had three or four terms (FDR if I recall correctly). Hence the question.

Yeah, the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951.

If only our current president respected the Constitution.

Hello, third term Obummer!

I actually think he could beat any of the current Republican challengers if he were allowed to run.
 
Cool - thanks for the reply. Would personally love to see him in office again. I thought one could not run for more than two consecutive terms, and I think there were a few presidents who had three or four terms (FDR if I recall correctly). Hence the question.

FDR was the reason for the 22nd, amusingly. America's first (and last) 3.5 term president.
 

RSP

Member
Got it. Too bad, would have loved to see him run for office again.

Maybe he would like to be prime minister of my country instead!
 
Got it. Too bad, would have loved to see him run for office again.

Maybe he would like to be prime minister of my country instead!

Where you at? If women are allowed to vote*, he could probably win. The man is charming AF.

*This is how you know I'm joking.
 

RSP

Member
The Netherlands, where the Christian-conservative party is against women voting rights, and the right wing parties are socialists.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Probably by a bigger margin than '12.

Oh, for sure. Romney is a much stronger candidate than anyone running.

I actually think the future of the Republican part is Libertarianism. It's the only way that they'll be able to connect with young voters, and in an America that cares less and less about marijuana and the protection of the tru meaning of marriage, it might be the only way to compete nationally. I don't think Rand Paul is there yet, but in 5-10, he'll have set up the infrastructure that allows the Republican candidate to win.
 
Oh, for sure. Romney is a much stronger candidate than anyone running.

I actually think the future of the Republican part is Libertarianism. It's the only way that they'll be able to connect with young voters, and in an America that cares less and less about marijuana and the protection of the tru meaning of marriage, it might be the only way to compete nationally. I don't think Rand Paul is there yet, but in 5-10, he'll have set up the infrastructure that allows the Republican candidate to win.

The inevitable break with evangelicals is gonna be ugly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom