Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_40815.pdf

If the candidates for US Senate in 2016 were Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Kay Hagan, who would you vote for?
Richard Burr 50%
Kay Hagan 38%
Not sure 12%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Kay Hagan?
Favorable 37%
Unfavorable 53%
Not sure 10%

 

[Jooney]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_40815.pdf

bad news for kay ha... fuck.

 

[ivysaur12]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_40815.pdf

Seems like Tillis and Hagan both haven't recovered -- Tillis's favorables are shit. Not great for the Democrats. They're going to have to really scratch the barrel to find someone to run, though I guess Hagan herself was a state senator before she was elected actual Senator. Joni Ernst, too.

 

[KingK]

Bernie Sanders practically announced his presidential campaign on the Nightly Show tonight.

Hopefully there are actually debates for the Dem primaries.

 

[thepotatoman]

Bernie Sanders practically announced his presidential campaign on the Nightly Show tonight.

Hopefully there are actually debates for the Dem primaries.

He's been practically announcing his campaign for a while now. It's definitely going to happen.

 

[benjipwns]

I could see one of those interview "debates" where they bring out each candidate separately and they get 20 minutes or whatever with the interviewer.

I can't imagine Hillary agreeing to any debates unless someone starts cracking 5 or 10% in the polls.

The Sanders question is whether it's an independent bid I guess I should look into it instead of just pondering.

 

[Jooney]

I could see one of those interview "debates" where they bring out each candidate separately and they get 20 minutes or whatever with the interviewer.

I can't imagine Hillary agreeing to any debates unless someone starts cracking 5 or 10% in the polls.

The Sanders question is whether it's an independent bid I guess I should look into it instead of just pondering.

Doesn't the Committee for Presidential Debates set the bar for candidate access? From memory it is pretty tough to get in and is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e. you can't get access to the debate because you're not popular enough, and you're not popular enough because you can't get access to the debate).

Also they need to get Jeff Daniels to do a 'The Newsroom' style cross examination of each candidate. Liven up the debates with some Sorkin-esque bombast.

 

[KingK]

I could see one of those interview "debates" where they bring out each candidate separately and they get 20 minutes or whatever with the interviewer.

I can't imagine Hillary agreeing to any debates unless someone starts cracking 5 or 10% in the polls.

The Sanders question is whether it's an independent bid I guess I should look into it instead of just pondering.

That would be terrible. I want to see someone rake Hillary over the coals from the left.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah I think Democrats will need to find a better candidate than Hagan in NC. She's well-connected and could raise money but those numbers are rough.

 

[benjipwns]

Saw this while checking into Sanders news, couldn't resist posting for Meta:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...supreme_court_injustices_reviewed.single.html

As Ian Millhiser illustrates in his trenchant, persuasive, and profoundly dispiriting book Injustices, the Supreme Court has consistently and unapologetically used its authority to thwart progress and perpetuate inequality. The child labor disaster is, if you can believe it, one of the less appalling stories in the book. For as long as the court has held the power to strike down laws—a power it created—its justices have used this authority to impose their own antiquated, antidemocratic ideas on the country at large. Millhiser repeatedly ponders why the court has so persistently hindered self-rule and social progress. The better question to ask about the court, however, is a more basic one: Why do we still put up with it?

You wouldn’t guess it from the confidence with which today’s justices invalidate legislation, but it’s actually not clear that the founders intended to give the Supreme Court final say over the Constitution’s meaning. Sure, Article III envisions “one Supreme Court” in which judicial power is vested, and Article VI makes the Constitution the “supreme law of the land.” But nowhere does the Constitution explicitly state that the Supreme Court gets to say, conclusively and with binding authority, how America’s founding document can and cannot be applied.

Given that ambiguous silence, shouldn’t Congress, too, get to play some role in interpreting the Constitution’s majestic generalities? When duly elected representatives of the people find that legislation grants “due process of law” and “equal protection,” shouldn’t that decision be accorded deference by nine unelected judges? And in a constitutional food fight between Congress and the court, shouldn’t the democratic process win out over the labyrinthine legal doctrines dreamed up by lawyers?

Injustices doesn’t quite confront these questions head-on. Instead, Millhiser—a former federal appeals court clerk and a writer for ThinkProgress—describes what happens when legislatures simply cede interpretive authority to a court swollen with power. The most galling portion of the book charts the court’s perversion of a key component of the Constitution, due process. After the Civil War, Congress passed (and the states ratified) the 14th Amendment, which stated in part that no state may deprive a person of “life, liberty or property without due process of law.” This clause had two functions. First, it forbade states from distorting the judicial system in order to deprive newly freed slaves of fair trials. Second, it barred states from enacting laws so deleterious to individual liberty, so contrary to fundamental rights, that they could not qualify as “law” at all.

The due process clause, then, was obviously designed to protect personal freedom. Yet, for decades, a business-friendly Supreme Court used it to strike down laws that regulated businesses in order to protect workers from hazardous conditions. In 1905, five conservative justices struck down a New York law that limited bakers to working 60 hours a week and 10 hours in any single day. (Prior to this law, impoverished bakers were frequently forced to work 24-hour shifts in squalid, roach-infested conditions.) According to the court, this modest regulation violated the “liberty” of bakery owners to negotiate contracts with their employees—and employees’ “liberty” to work brutally long shifts—without “due process of law.

...

This era of antidemocratic judicial arrogance reached its peak in the early days of the New Deal, when conservative justices struck down legislation regulating national industries [by creating cartels - ed], taxing food production, and creating pension systems for railway workers. Then, in 1937—possibly in response to nationwide outcry—the court pulled back from the brink, completely reversing course and abandoning its reactionary doctrines. Seventeen years later, the court handed down Brown v. Board of Education, striking a judicial blow against racial segregation and launching the golden years of the Warren Court. In short order, the newly liberal court issued rulings that vastly expanded the rights of the accused, the poor, and minorities. But this era turned out to be fleeting, and by the 1970s and ’80s, the court—stacked with Republican appointees—relapsed into stinginess, once again depriving minorities and the poor of equal justice.

How has the Supreme Court gotten away with so much bad behavior for so long? It has no army to enforce its rulings, no police force to ensure compliance. In pragmatic terms, there are probably three things that keep American law tethered to the court. First, most of us, especially those in government, simply feel like there’s no other option but to follow the justices’ orders. That’s because the court has positioned itself at the pinnacle of American democracy, seizing a constitutional high ground and declaring its own decrees to be ironclad and incontestable. (The justices once infamously proclaimed that they were empowered to call “the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division.”)

Second, some sizable number of legislators will usually agree with any given ruling and can push the government to conform to it, as when conservative state representatives eagerly accepted the Supreme Court’s invitation to reject Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Third, the court truly does stand as the final resort for unpopular minorities: In the last century, it has (somewhat inconsistently) protected religious liberty, free expression, racial and gender equality, reproductive freedom, sexual autonomy, and equal dignity for gays and lesbians.

Are these triumphs enough to justify our tolerance for the court’s graver missteps? Like Millhiser, I’m starting to doubt it. The court’s great liberal rulings arrived only after a majority of Americans already agreed that a certain constitutional right exists. When the court struck down contraceptive bans, few states still enforced theirs. When it legalized same-sex sodomy, only four states specifically criminalized gay relationships. Brown v. Board of Education, the greatest decision of all time, had hardly any immediate effect on segregated schools; widespread integration only occurred after Congress stepped in 10 years later with the Civil Rights Act.

On this record, I’m not sure America’s experiment with judicial supremacy has been a great success. Its finest moments have merely crystallized an emerging public sentiment; its bravest rulings have been widely ignored; its worst decisions have devastated the lives of the less fortunate. There’s essentially no rein on the court’s power, no check on its ability to manipulate the law to the detriment of democracy and equality. The justices’ willingness to support minority rights like gay marriage means many of us still look upon them fondly (and hopefully). But at some point, the occasional victory for minorities may no longer justify the constant slew of disturbing decisions designed to aid the powerful.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, today’s court has edged closer to the abyss each year. Already this term, the conservative justices look poised to strike down an anti-gerrymandering law and a restraint on judicial campaign finance. The court could also strip 8.2 million Americans of their health insurance thanks to a malicious, mendacious lawsuit. And over the last decade, the court carefully planted time bombs that could soon obliterate campaign finance restrictions, willfully marching America toward an oligarchy. These rulings aren’t just minor missteps: They pose a real threat to democracy, seriously undermining Americans’ ability to govern themselves.

How much of this corrosion of democracy are we willing to take? And what happens when we put our foot down? Injustices flirts with these questions but ultimately shies away from any definitive answer. But of course, the solution here is obvious: If we want to curb the Supreme Court’s power, all we have to do is ignore it. Issue enough rulings that antagonize both liberals and conservatives, and the court might just castrate itself, leading legislatures in red and blue states alike to start ignoring its proclamations. That’ll be a sad fate for a briefly great institution—but also a happy day for American democracy. At bottom, the Supreme Court exists to enforce the rule of law. When the justices break that rule themselves, the remedy is obvious: The court has got to go.

The bulk of this argument is hilariously one I saw constantly in conservative writings about say ten years ago and was common farther back too. Only with the cases reversed in a lot of ways.

I probably couldn't count the number of conservative legal scholars who have bitched about the court granting itself the power of judicial review.

Personally, I think of the three branches, the courts have been the least bad of them. As the writer here notes the court has swayed from one end to another and in many ways has sealed public opinion into law. Of course I can say that being someone who likes most of the Lochner Court, the Warren Court and the Roberts Court's big rulings. I like a conservative court in terms of saying "hold up here Congress/Mr. President, how about you take another shot at this?" or "Can't you read the fucking Bill of Rights/Amendments? You're all in contempt! This whole country is in contempt!"

Shame they haven't taken a hatchet to the expansive security state though. Sadly Sotomeyer seems to be the only one who is consistent (for a SC Justice) on that type of stuff.

 

[benjipwns]

Doesn't the Committee for Presidential Debates set the bar for candidate access? From memory it is pretty tough to get in and is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e. you can't get access to the debate because you're not popular enough, and you're not popular enough because you can't get access to the debate).

That is for the general election, for the primaries it's set more by agreement between the party and network hosting the debate. It's part of why Fox News was trying to narrow the debates to "serious" candidates, while MSNBC was letting in Gary Johnson and so on. And in 2008 Fox was trying to keep Gravel and Kucinich on the stage.

The CPD btw is run by the RNC and DNC now, the League of Women Voters bailed because of the parties constant desire to control every aspect and have those 80 page "standards of conduct" and adjust criteria at a whim. (Something the RNC and DNC agreed upon in the VA governors race was that no matter what criteria they set and Robert Sarvis met, they had to change the criteria.)

That would be terrible. I want to see someone rake Hillary over the coals from the left.

Why do you want to divide the party in the most important election in American history? If Mitt Romney wins, women will literally be made illegal unless they're in his binders.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yeah I think Democrats will need to find a better candidate than Hagan in NC. She's well-connected and could raise money but those numbers are rough.

#Hagan2020

 

[Maledict]

I think people are forgetting 2008. Aside from the flubbed taxi driver license issue, Hilary *crushed* at the debates. They had tons of them and she easily outperformed the rest of the field, especially Obama. Debates aren't an issue for her at all - she's a policy person, she knows details, she remembers numbers, she will always do well at them. There was a reason during that time period her numbers were 20+ ahead of Obama - every time they debated she came off looking a heck of a lot better and more viable as a candidate.

Hilary's issue is her speeches, her ability to connect with voters, her thin skin and tendency to overreact to things, the impression she will distort the truth, and Bill Clinton. Some of those she overcame in the latter stages of her campaign, some have improved with time, but they remain her weak points. Debating is not one of them.

 

[Coriolanus]

Letting people with business degrees run tech companies is a terrible idea.
See: Steve Ballmer.

he attended college prep and engineering classes at Lawrence Technological University. He graduated from Detroit Country Day School, a private college preparatory school in Beverly Hills, Michigan, with a perfect score of 800 on the mathematical section of the SAT[13][14] and was a National Merit Scholar.[15] He now sits on the school's board of directors. In 1977, he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College with an A.B. in applied mathematics and economics.

What about him?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think people are forgetting 2008. Aside from the flubbed taxi driver license issue, Hilary *crushed* at the debates. They had tons of them and she easily outperformed the rest of the field, especially Obama. Debates aren't an issue for her at all - she's a policy person, she knows details, she remembers numbers, she will always do well at them. There was a reason during that time period her numbers were 20+ ahead of Obama - every time they debated she came off looking a heck of a lot better and more viable as a candidate.

Hilary's issue is her speeches, her ability to connect with voters, her thin skin and tendency to overreact to things, the impression she will distort the truth, and Bill Clinton. Some of those she overcame in the latter stages of her campaign, some have improved with time, but they remain her weak points. Debating is not one of them.

Actually that's not true. She was better than the field initially, when she was the clear front runner. But once Obama and Roberts started performing well her debate performances declined. Her attacks on Obama were often desperate and blatantly false. I remember her accusing Obama of praising Ronald Reagan, tying him to Farakkhan, and making weak Tony Rezko attacks.

She is not good under pressure because she doesn't sound authentic under pressure. You can hear the calculations in her tone. If she is the nominee she'll probably do fine on many issues, but I don't see how she can defend her record. Her stint as SoS was pretty empty and her senate career is defined by voting for the Iraq war. If I was a GOP strategist I'd advise the candidate to keep her on the defensive and wait for her to get upset.

Her main strength is that people know her and agree with her on many issues. Outside of that she's not a particularly good politician or candidate. And I say that as someone who supported her in 2008.

 

[NeoXChaos]

New Quinnipac Poll:

Colorado

Paul 44%
Clinton 41%

Clinton 41%
Christie 39%

Clinton 41%
Bush 38%

Walker 42%
Clinton 41%

Clinton 41%
Huckabee 41%

Rubio 41%
Clinton 40%

Clinton 42%
Cruz 41%

Iowa

Paul 43%
Clinton 42%

Clinton 41%
Christie 39%

Clinton 41%
Bush 40%

Clinton 44%
Walker 40%

Clinton 42%
Huckabee 42%

Clinton 43%
Rubio 40%

Clinton 43%
Cruz 40%

Virginia

Clinton 47%
Paul 43%

Clinton 46%
Christie 40%

Clinton 47%
Bush 40%

Clinton 47%
Walker 40%

Clinton 48%
Huckabee 40%

Clinton 48%
Rubio 40%

Clinton 49%
Cruz 39%

_____

Why is she always underpolling in CO?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

New Quinnipac Poll:

_____

Why is she always underpolling in CO?

Its a hard to poll state with changing demographics

 

[Frank the Great]

Don't Dems always underpoll in Colorado?

 

[HylianTom]

Colorado stumps me.

And Virginia.. wow. If Virginia keeps this up, she's looking like an honest-to-God blue state. Remarkable. We could know the shape of the race when the eastern seaboard's polls are closed.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.chafee2016.com/

 

[pigeon]

Why is she always underpolling in CO?

Most pollsters underpoll Latinos. If you don't have a high-quality Spanish-speaking polling option, you'll lose all the Latinos who only speak Spanish and a big chunk of those who speak both Spanish and English, but don't trust people who call them on the phone in English. Colorado underpolled in 2012 as well for exactly these reasons.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Most pollsters underpoll Latinos. If you don't have a high-quality Spanish-speaking polling option, you'll lose all the Latinos who only speak Spanish and a big chunk of those who speak both Spanish and English, but don't trust people who call them on the phone in English. Colorado underpolled in 2012 as well for exactly these reasons.

wasn't it pretty good in 2014 though (obviously turn out was different though)?

 

[Yellowtail]

Pollsters, including Quinnipiac got Colorado totally wrong in 2012, underestimating Obama by 5 points.

Still, Hillary has polled consistently badly there compared to other states. Colorado comprises a lot of young latte-liberal/libertarian types who Obama appealed to and are wary of Clinton, and are particularly open to voting for Rand Paul. Bush does the worst there among Republicans because he's even more establishment than Clinton.

The 2008 primaries indicated where Clinton's strengths and weaknesses are compared to Obama and it bears out in the polling now (the whole wine track v. beer track thing). She does at least as well as Obama in Appalachia and the upper south and states like Pennsylvania and Florida, which she won, and worse in states like Iowa and Colorado. Virginia is a better fit for Obama but it's trending Democratic so fast it doesn't matter.

The good news for Hillary is she's doing better in the electorally rich states like PA, OH, VA, and FL than the ones with fewer electoral votes like CO and IA.

 

[thepotatoman]

wasn't it pretty good in 2014 though (obviously turn out was different though)?

It was correct while nationally it was off by like 5 points against republicans, which still makes it biased against democrats compared to other states nationally. It simply lucked its way into being right this time thanks to that national trend.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Good to see solid margins in Virginia.

Given polling issues in Colorado I'd assume she has a small lead there. And the only candidate who beats her by a significant margin (even if small) is Rand Paul, who doesn't have a chance at winning the primary.

Iowa... Still think she'll win it. In general I'd say Hillary should be able to replicate Obama's 2012 victory at least, with North Carolina added to her count. But it's early yet!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

New Quinnipac Poll:

Colorado

Paul 44%
Clinton 41%

Clinton 41%
Christie 39%

Clinton 41%
Bush 38%

Walker 42%
Clinton 41%

Clinton 41%
Huckabee 41%

Rubio 41%
Clinton 40%

Clinton 42%
Cruz 41%

Iowa

Paul 43%
Clinton 42%

Clinton 41%
Christie 39%

Clinton 41%
Bush 40%

Clinton 44%
Walker 40%

Clinton 42%
Huckabee 42%

Clinton 43%
Rubio 40%

Clinton 43%
Cruz 40%

Virginia

Clinton 47%
Paul 43%

Clinton 46%
Christie 40%

Clinton 47%
Bush 40%

Clinton 47%
Walker 40%

Clinton 48%
Huckabee 40%

Clinton 48%
Rubio 40%

Clinton 49%
Cruz 39%

_____

Why is she always underpolling in CO?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/09/liberal-politico-reporter-clinton-campaign-collapsing-completely/

loldailycaller

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/09/liberal-politico-reporter-clinton-campaign-collapsing-completely/

loldailycaller

lol is right. Someone should tell them winning Virginia alone nearly cancels out losing IA/CO.

In fact winning all the Kerry states + NV/NM/VA adds up to exactly 270.

And her polling in Florida and Ohio is relatively strong.

But I mean let's not ruin the fun. Could Michigan and Pennsylvania go to Ted Cruz?

 

[NeoXChaos]

lol is right. Someone should tell them winning Virginia alone nearly cancels out losing IA/CO.

In fact winning all the Kerry states + NV/NM/VA adds up to exactly 270.

And her polling in Florida and Ohio is relatively strong.

But I mean let's not ruin the fun. Could Michigan and Pennsylvania go to Ted Cruz?

yeah. I dont see how Hillary loses CO if she matches or exceeds Obama's performance and turnout among Latinos. If she is getting NV and NM, CO should come with her. FL wont matter if she already has presidency. That state would most likely decide the presidency if it ever came down to it since its always close and takes the longest to call. OH will be called well before FL.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I used to think Ohio would likely due to losses in black turnout. But it seems like demographics alone kind of ensure the electorate will have a heavy enough black participation rate regardless. Obviously Hillary could still lose the state but it won't be due to black people staying home since Obama isn't on the ballot.

Will be interesting to see if the courts neutralize Obama's immigration exec orders, to the point they don't hurt Jeb Bush if he's the nominee.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.chafee2016.com/

Values like, when the going gets rough, trust on me to bail out. And, hey! Remember my dad?!? And "what policy positions would you like me to have?"

edit: wait he's running as a democrat, not some no labels/americans elect, partisan politiks is bad, im serious fer realz lol not really thing

 

[benjipwns]

"Hi, I'm Lincoln Chafee. Do you like Hillary Clinton but wish she voted against Iraq and was a white male with a more abrasive personality? Do you want someone who wasn't a Goldwater Republican like Hillary Clinton but the last of the Rockefeller Republicans? Do you like J Street? Let's make decisions with our brains, not our biceps*. I'm Lincoln Chafee and I maybe approved this message, check back."

*actual phrase on the website

 

[Aaron Strife]

Considering how much the grassroots love Warren they should have no problem supporting a former Republican

 

[Metaphoreus]

Saw this while checking into Sanders news, couldn't resist posting for Meta:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...supreme_court_injustices_reviewed.single.html

The bulk of this argument is hilariously one I saw constantly in conservative writings about say ten years ago and was common farther back too. Only with the cases reversed in a lot of ways.

I probably couldn't count the number of conservative legal scholars who have bitched about the court granting itself the power of judicial review.

Personally, I think of the three branches, the courts have been the least bad of them. As the writer here notes the court has swayed from one end to another and in many ways has sealed public opinion into law. Of course I can say that being someone who likes most of the Lochner Court, the Warren Court and the Roberts Court's big rulings. I like a conservative court in terms of saying "hold up here Congress/Mr. President, how about you take another shot at this?" or "Can't you read the fucking Bill of Rights/Amendments? You're all in contempt! This whole country is in contempt!"

Shame they haven't taken a hatchet to the expansive security state though. Sadly Sotomeyer seems to be the only one who is consistent (for a SC Justice) on that type of stuff.

That article is just sour grapes. That it (probably unknowingly) wraps itself in Scalian rhetoric in denouncing judicial power is pretty funny, though. Here are a few points in response (not that anybody asked):

(1) The federal judiciary is supposed to be undemocratic. There's a reason federal judges are appointed (as opposed to elected), hold their office for life, and can't have their pay reduced during their tenure. This isn't exactly news to anyone (except those who write at ThinkProgress or Slate, apparently).

(2) The courts do defer to the other branches in interpreting the Constitution. In general, when a challenger claims that a given law is unconstitutional, the court presumes that the law is constitutional, and requires the challenger to disprove every conceivable (not actual--conceivable) justification for the law. They do this precisely because they presume the other branches wouldn't do something unconstitutional.

(3) The author of the article employs the term "antidemocratic" in a partisan manner. If striking down certain New Deal programs was "antidemocratic," then so was striking down sodomy laws and abortion restrictions. It's not "antidemocratic" only when you disagree with the court. But I didn't notice any complaints about those last two actions.

(4) Surely the author meant to use scare quotes around "religious liberty," or at least to preface it with "so-called," right? He's referring to a time when the Court, exercising its antidemocratic prerogative, foisted the rules of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts on all federal and state laws. We now know that their true aim was to permit discrimination against gay people, so there's no need to legitimize those old cases by treating them as if they really did protect religious liberty (as opposed to so-called "religious liberty").

(5) The author commits the common mistake of assessing judicial outcomes based on his personal policy preferences rather than their compliance with law. And his is not an especially nuanced attempt at this assessment. To him, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is about whether gerrymandering is good or bad, rather than about whether "the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. § 2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts." To the author, of course the Court would be wrong to strike down "a restraint on judicial campaign finance" in Williams-Yulee! After all, Citizens United! Citizens United! (The "restraint on judicial campaign finance" in question is a prohibition on the signature of a candidate for judicial office appearing on a mass-mailed letter announcing the candidate's candidacy and inviting campaign contributions. Not exactly the can-a-nonprofit-corporation-spend-money-to-advertise-a-movie-critical-of-a-candidate-for-federal-office-within-sixty-days-of-an-election that was involved in Citizens United.

Spoiler

Citizens United!

) It's as if the First Amendment isn't even a thing.

(6) The proposed cure is far worse than the disease. "Let's ignore the Supreme Court" may be a great way to restrict independent political speech, but it's also a great way to legitimize bans on same-sex marriage and abortion. The better approach is to recognize that not every good thing is mandated (or even permitted) by the Constitution, and not every bad thing is prohibited by it, and we'll all just have to learn to live together within those limits on our power over one another.

 

[gcubed]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_40815.pdf

i wonder if Richard could tell us who fired first?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Right on time!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-swing-state-poll/?postshare=9911428605029308

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Right on time!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-swing-state-poll/?postshare=9911428605029308

Her career is baffling. How does she still hold a job at the post.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

(6) The proposed cure is far worse than the disease. "Let's ignore the Supreme Court" may be a great way to restrict independent political speech, but it's also a great way to legitimize bans on same-sex marriage and abortion. The better approach is to recognize that not every good thing is mandated (or even permitted) by the Constitution, and not every bad thing is prohibited by it, and we'll all just have to learn to live together within those limits on our power over one another.

Or we can just realize that we can name justices that to the court who can overturn precedent. That's the best way for congress to have a check.

Or pass laws which force courts to rule a certain way (RFRAs), or take things out of their jurisdiction, or pass constitutional amendments

There are a lot of ways to shape the court in a way people desire.

I agree with the general thesis of the injustice book that the supreme court is more often than not a tool for the powerful against democracy and the desires of the masses but there are a lot of legislative and other pathways to fixing that besides going all jackson.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Or we can just realize that we can name justices that to the court who can overturn precedent. That's the best way for congress to have a check.

Or pass laws which force courts to rule a certain way (RFRAs), or take things out of their jurisdiction, or pass constitutional amendments

There are a lot of ways to shape the court in a way people desire.

I don't have a problem with most of those suggestions, but I don't take any of them to have been the Slate author's meaning.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Her career is baffling. How does she still hold a job at the post.

Even by troll standards her argument is just too much

When you think about it for a bit, and look at the underlying numbers, it gets more and more scary for Clinton. As things stand now, with a wide-open GOP race and many lesser known candidates, the GOP candidates in the poll are drawing between 78 and 87 percent of Republicans. Unless they nominate a clunker, that number will likely go up to around the level Clinton enjoys with Democrats, over 90 percent. Since Clinton is already getting over 90 percent, her polling is very likely to get worse once a GOP nominee is picked.

What the fuck?

 

[Black Mamba]

The Court's biggest issue is how often it is far behind it is in terms of social acceptance.

By that I mean things like the Dredd Scott, Raich, Bowers, Plessy v Ferguson, etc

It's pathetic that the court could allow a sodomy law to prevent homosexual sex to stand because it will take 20 years later til Ellen and Will & Grace made is okay to not hate homosexuals in general.

These are issues that are clearly both unconstitutional and inhumane. The Court should always be fighting against allowing a group of people to be considered subhuman and it has so often failed in that.

The Court generally waits til the general population is okay with something before standing behind it when it comes to these issues and that's wrong. It's one thing to be conservative in other aspects of the law, but not right here.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't have a problem with most of those suggestions, but I don't take any of them to have been the Slate author's meaning.

Oh I disagree with the slate person. The court serves a purpose. There's room for reform but ignoring it is silly. If anything the world is moving more towards judicial rule and codifying "constitutions" as supreme law.

 

[Yellowtail]

Even by troll standards her argument is just too much


What the fuck?

Lol.

Looking at the crosstabs the only person with 78% support among Republicans is Christie (for obvious reasons), everyone else has similar levels of intra-party support as Clinton. Talk about spurious reporting.

I wonder how many "Hillary is imploding!!!" stories we're going to get in the next 19 months.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Lol.

Looking at the crosstabs the only person with 78% support among Republicans is Christie (for obvious reasons), everyone else has similar levels of intra-party support as Clinton. Talk about spurious reporting.

I wonder how many "Hillary is imploding!!!" stories we're going to get in the next 19 months.

As many as it takes for the GOP to sufficiently deny reality for a third consecutive general election cycle.

 

[BertramCooper]

As many as it takes for the GOP to sufficiently deny reality for a third consecutive general election cycle.

"We've lost the country!"

"America is dommed!"

"Americans don't want a president; they want Santa Claus!"

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Mother Jones is attacking Ted Cruz for being an ethical lawyer:

After serving over five years as the state of Texas' top lawyer, Cruz in 2008 joined the Houston office of the high-powered international law firm Morgan Lewis to lead its Supreme Court and national appellate practice. He stepped down as a partner in the firm after being elected a US senator in 2012. During his stint at Morgan Lewis, Cruz, who casts himself as a politician who stands on principle, handled several cases that cut against his political stances. He twice worked on cases in New Mexico to secure $50-million-plus jury awards (though, as a politician, he has called for tort reform that would prevent these sorts of awards). He assisted a lawsuit filed by a man who was wrongfully convicted of murder and nearly executed (though, as a politician, he has insisted the criminal-justice system functions just fine when it comes to capital punishment). And in one case, he filed a brief supporting President Barack Obama's stimulus (though, as a politician, Cruz has slammed this Obama initiative).

But much of the time, Cruz represented corporate clients. He was a lawyer for Kraft in a major lawsuit against Starbucks. He represented Pfizer when a California county accused the drug manufacturer and other pharmaceutical firms of overcharging. (In a win for Big Pharma, the Supreme Court tossed out the case.) He defended Eagle Freight Systems when drivers sued the company seeking unpaid overtime wages and expenses. (Cruz lost a bid to uphold a lower court ruling that shut down the drivers' suit. Two years later, when Cruz was no longer involved in the case, the trucking company prevailed.) In a controversial move, he represented a Pennsylvania developer who was a central player in a corruption scandal that exploited juveniles, handling a dispute this crooked developer had with his insurance company.

You all might remember a similar issue cropped up last year concerning Hillary Clinton.

*****

The statute of limitations is about to run on Crossroads GPS' forms 990 covering the period including the 2010 elections. Even if the IRS rejects Crossroads' 501(c)(4) application, they won't be able to tax whatever contributions Crossroads received during that period.

*****

That Sally Kohn article I linked to for benji a couple days ago has spawned the kind of debate that only benji or I might enjoy. Here's Ryan Cooper, writing at The Week:

Conservatives are clear on one point these days: Government coercion is bad. So when Sally Kohn at Talking Points Memo wrote an unfortunately muddled post arguing that statutes outlawing discrimination against LGBT people are not inherently coercive, Sean Davis leapt to the attack:

That's how laws — even vile ones like those of the Jim Crow era — work. Blacks didn't choose to use different water fountains or lunch counters. They were forced to do so by police, hoses, and dogs. A law is nothing but a threat backed up by force. This principle is not "ideological," as Kohn tried to suggest on Twitter. It is definitional. The threat of force is what converts a mere recommendation into an actual law.

On this point, Davis is correct and Kohn is wrong. However, Davis seems blithely unaware of the ideological rake he stomped on in making this argument. For if all laws without exception are coercive, and they most surely are, then the government is unavoidably involved in either preventing or propagating discrimination. The idea that government coercion in itself is bad is blown out of the water — as is half of conservative political argumentation.

What Davis seems to forget is that laws like ObamaCare (which supposedly tramples individual liberty through coercion) or statutes against LGBT discrimination (which supposedly tramples religious freedom through coercion) aren't the only ones on the books. There is also property law, corporate law, securities law, contract law, labor law — the very foundation stones of our economy.

These laws also operate on coercion. If you interfere with someone's property right, by entering his house without his consent, for example, then under the law he can call on public authorities to, at the very least, violently compel you into leaving. He can probably call on them to stuff you into a jail cell and, in some cases, kill you outright. Property, wealth, and corporate structures rest on a premise of violent state coercion — that is to say, law, per Davis.

Coercion is a background condition of all economic activity.

Prompting Davis to reply at The Federalist:

Um, how does Cooper think property rights are enforced? How does he think contract rights are enforced? Laws acknowledging property exist to protect one’s right to that property. There’s a reason the police will show up at your home with guns at the ready if you call to tell them somebody’s invaded your home. There’s a reason you will get hauled into court and potentially punished with government-sanctioned fines if you breach the terms of a contract you signed with another party. If Cooper thinks there’s a means by which we protect rights which don’t involve the use of coercion or force, I’d love to hear about it.

...

Rather than acknowledging this rather clear fact — that nearly all debates of law, including debates about religious freedom laws, are questions of propriety rather than of the ability of the government to coerce — Cooper declared that if all law is coercion, all coercion must therefore be appropriate. This declaration is as illogical as it is illiberal, although adherents to the ideology of Mao and Stalin may find it persuasive. Saying that because all laws are coercive, therefore all coercion must be legal makes about as much sense as saying that because all dogs are animals, all animals must therefore be dogs. It’s an obvious logical fallacy to anyone with even the slightest grasp of basic logic.

At their core, however, Kohn and Cooper appear to desperately want to avoid the real question at the heart of the religious freedom debate: should the government force individuals to participate in religious ceremonies against their will? Kohn tried to sidestep the issue by saying government can’t force anybody to do anything. Cooper took the opposite side of the same coin and argued that if all laws are force, then all force must by definition be wise and just.

Their tactics tell you everything you need to know about the religious freedom debate.

*****

And speaking of Hillary Clinton, International Business Times has a dot-connecting article about her time at the State Department:

For union organizers in Colombia, the dangers of their trade were intensifying. When workers at the country’s largest independent oil company staged a strike in 2011, the Colombian military rounded them up at gunpoint and threatened violence if they failed to disband, according to human rights organizations. Similar intimidation tactics against the workers, say labor leaders, amounted to an everyday feature of life.

For the United States, these were precisely the sorts of discomfiting accounts that were supposed to be prevented in Colombia under a labor agreement that accompanied a recently signed free trade pact liberalizing the exchange of goods between the countries. From Washington to Bogota, leaders had promoted the pact as a win for all -- a deal that would at once boost trade while strengthening the rights of embattled Colombian labor organizers. That formulation had previously drawn skepticism from many prominent Democrats, among them Hillary Clinton.

Yet as union leaders and human rights activists conveyed these harrowing reports of violence to then-Secretary of State Clinton in late 2011, urging her to pressure the Colombian government to protect labor organizers, she responded first with silence, these organizers say. The State Department publicly praised Colombia’s progress on human rights, thereby permitting hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to flow to the same Colombian military that labor activists say helped intimidate workers.

At the same time that Clinton's State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.

The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra.

 

[adamsappel]

Her career is baffling. How does she still hold a job at the post.

Because people think the WP is a liberal paper, but it is not. It was, famously, but all those young reporters who railed and sallied against politicians got promotions and raises, they became friends with those in power, they wanted to live in Bethesda instead of Adams Morgan, etc. There are more conservative columnists than not and they will gladly print any politician's opinion. And it is poorly-written besides.

 

[HylianTom]

"We've lost the country!"

"America is dommed!"

"Americans don't want a president; they want Santa Claus!"

Lather, rinse, repeat.

If my predictions of a closer race turn-out to be wrong and this ends-up being another election that's not really close in the Electoral College, how they react this time will be veerrrrry interesting. Hillary is decidedly not a superstar campaigner (at least, I don't think so), and this would normally be a very winnable campaign for the GOP. They need a Sista Soulja moment for their party in the very worst of ways, but such a moment isn't coming anytime soon, as many of their base voters literally think that they cannot betray God by changing political positions.

 

[Black Mamba]

I agree with megamind. Test cruz's history as an attorney is irrelevant. Who he defensed does not matter so long as he did it ethically.

Stupid criticism.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Even by troll standards her argument is just too much


What the fuck?

I avoid her readings. Then again, I dont enjoy any republican writer. I only enjoy the neutral reports like sabato and calizza. I wish we had a political insider on political gaf like them. I would love to ask a bunch of question on elections.

 

[HylianTom]

I agree with megamind. Test cruz's history as an attorney is irrelevant. Who he defensed does not matter so long as he did it ethically.

Stupid criticism.

Yup. I read that, shrugged, and went, "so what?"