USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Unless I am not thinking of someone, I think Biden is really the only big name that has not announced yet. I would suspect by the time the early primaries roll around, it will be down to 5 serious candidates and a few candidates that are essentially single issue candidates that hang around, try to boost their name recognition and land a TV deal. It will really come down to which 5 (or so) are able to raise money, do reasonably well in polls, and not shoot themselves in the foot
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Really important case coming to the court next week ... My hope is the plaintiff prevails
Detailed description here
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/...ortant-agency-deference-question/#more-283964
Short description
Next week the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie, which arises from a dispute over benefits for a Marine who served in the Vietnam War. Although it may sound dry, the case could be one of the most consequential of the term, because the justices will decide whether to overrule a line of cases instructing courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation – a doctrine sometimes known as “Auer deference.” The Supreme Court’s ruling could have a significant impact far beyond veterans’ benefits, from the environment to immigration, and it could also shed more light on when and whether the justices are willing to overrule their prior cases.
Congress makes the laws. But there will inevitably be gaps to fill in those laws. Under federal immigration law, for example, someone who is not a U.S. citizen can be deported if he is convicted of “child abuse” – but the law does not say exactly what kind of conduct constitutes “child abuse.” Under a doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine, when a law that a federal agency administers is not clear, courts will generally accept the agency’s interpretation of that law as long as the interpretation is reasonable (and even if the court might interpret the law differently). One rationale for the rule is that the agency has more expertise in the subject covered by the law than courts do.
The same rationale is at the heart of the doctrine of Auer deference, which was named after the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins and is sometimes also known as Seminole Rock deference, after the 1945 case Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. As law professor Aaron Nielson wrote in 2016, “doesn’t the agency that wrote a regulation know best what it means?” Supporters of the doctrine also argue that it makes it easier for courts to review challenges to an agency’s interpretation of its regulations, because they only have to determine whether the interpretation is reasonable, rather than whether it is the best interpretation. And because courts around the country are more likely to uphold the agency’s interpretation, they add, the doctrine helps to ensure that everyone is on the same page about what a regulation means. But the doctrine has also become a target for conservatives and business groups, who believe that it gives federal agencies too much power.
Detailed description here
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/...ortant-agency-deference-question/#more-283964
Short description
Next week the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie, which arises from a dispute over benefits for a Marine who served in the Vietnam War. Although it may sound dry, the case could be one of the most consequential of the term, because the justices will decide whether to overrule a line of cases instructing courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation – a doctrine sometimes known as “Auer deference.” The Supreme Court’s ruling could have a significant impact far beyond veterans’ benefits, from the environment to immigration, and it could also shed more light on when and whether the justices are willing to overrule their prior cases.
Congress makes the laws. But there will inevitably be gaps to fill in those laws. Under federal immigration law, for example, someone who is not a U.S. citizen can be deported if he is convicted of “child abuse” – but the law does not say exactly what kind of conduct constitutes “child abuse.” Under a doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine, when a law that a federal agency administers is not clear, courts will generally accept the agency’s interpretation of that law as long as the interpretation is reasonable (and even if the court might interpret the law differently). One rationale for the rule is that the agency has more expertise in the subject covered by the law than courts do.
The same rationale is at the heart of the doctrine of Auer deference, which was named after the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins and is sometimes also known as Seminole Rock deference, after the 1945 case Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. As law professor Aaron Nielson wrote in 2016, “doesn’t the agency that wrote a regulation know best what it means?” Supporters of the doctrine also argue that it makes it easier for courts to review challenges to an agency’s interpretation of its regulations, because they only have to determine whether the interpretation is reasonable, rather than whether it is the best interpretation. And because courts around the country are more likely to uphold the agency’s interpretation, they add, the doctrine helps to ensure that everyone is on the same page about what a regulation means. But the doctrine has also become a target for conservatives and business groups, who believe that it gives federal agencies too much power.
Sounds like if it's overturned, it'll cause a lot of court cases to figure out these grey areas.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
.. or clarifications to the secondary ambiguities derived from the initial set of ambiguities from what Congress passes
Which will involve a lot of court cases
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Not necessarily ... this case is not about dealing with ambiguities in the law (the Chevron defense), this is when the regulators create rules that are ambiguous and make a final determination on what their ambiguity means without the normal public publication and/or comment period. Overturning Chevron would be a ton of court cases, this is a narrower universe and should clarify things that change from administration to administration as they may interpret the ambiguities differently (as they have from Bush to Obama to Trump) ... which puts people and business in a bad spot, like the guy who brought this case.
I'm perfectly fine with adding black where there is grey when it comes to legal matters. The problem is that the authority which is supposed to do that (Congress) tends to be incapable of getting out of its own way, which means it's going to come to the courts to decide. I'm also OK with that, to be fair.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Agree 100% on Congress should do that, not only for the laws they pass, but updating prior laws to reflect changes (in technology for example).
But again, this case is not that ... it is when regulatory agencies make ambiguous rules themselves based on ambiguities in the initial law and make determinations on how to clarify their own ambiguities outside of publish and comment rules (which are law)
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
This is what can happen when your country isn't run by corporations:
New Zealand to ban military style weapons
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47648549
New Zealand to ban military style weapons
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47648549
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Yup, took less than a week. People are already, willingly, turning in their weapons. The government is also offering buy-backs. I can already hear my conservative, American friends saying, "This is how it starts! This is how tyrany begins! Fuck big government!"
My response to that is, this is what happens when people really care and don't want a similar tragedy to happen again. Thoughts and prayers my ass, action!
My response to that is, this is what happens when people really care and don't want a similar tragedy to happen again. Thoughts and prayers my ass, action!
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Yes it can be done. Only USA specifically argues they need guns for self defense against other people. The others denote defense against animals in the wild, pest control, sports, tradition, etc. Only in the case where you defend against people, you need to have unbarred access to the weapons market because you must presume the people after you are devious enough to acquire anything at the black market. It is the mind of a paranoid idiot and the mindset of people that do not think for the long run and the condition of peoples that somehow manage to live war under peacetime.
I don't see why revolvers, small caliber carbines and usual two barrel shotguns aren't enough. You know, the weapons from the hunting lodge.
I don't see why revolvers, small caliber carbines and usual two barrel shotguns aren't enough. You know, the weapons from the hunting lodge.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
It seems like the Mueller investigation was a load of hot air about nothing then. 
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
I don’t know that I’d call 37 indictments and 7+ guilty pleas/verdicts (and counting) “a load of hot air about nothing”, but you’re right that the explicit evidence of Russian collusion stayed just outside the boundaries of the Trump campaign. Mueller didn’t make a determination one way or the other on obstruction of justice, but the new A.G. claims to have consulted with Rosenstein and determined that there’s insufficient evidence from Mueller’s investigation to pursue charges against Trump, even if DOJ guidelines allowed the indictment of a sitting president.It seems like the Mueller investigation was a load of hot air about nothing then.
I’m curious to see if Trump suddenly decides Mueller is credible now, or if he just sticks to the witch hunt mantra.
This also isn’t over, as Mueller handed off some investigative leads to other prosecutors within DOJ, so they wouldn’t be covered in this report; and of course the state of New York is pursuing their own criminal investigation, which could lead to unpardonable outcomes if there are any convictions. And the House is still pursuing their own investigations with subpoena power.
But yes, this is a PR victory for the Republicans. Imagine how much more of one it might have been if they hadn’t trashed the investigation from the beginning...
You know, it broke even with all the stuff they confiscated from Manafort & cronies. Might actually have made a profit.Can we have our $25 million spent on the investigation back?
Well, the manager of the campaign was certainly influenced, and Mueller has reported some stuff to other FBI departments. It got close to him, just not all the way. The obstruction part is still looming.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
And Trump's taxes (or lack of them) will be investigated too.
It’s good that the president isn’t an agent for a hostile foreign nation, although you could argue he has unwittingly been one throughout both the campaign and during the presidency. However, stupidity isn’t a crime and it’s up to voters to decide if that’s acceptable in a president.
The “we wasted tax payer money on the investigation” argument is dumb and hypocritical especially coming from the same people who cried about emails and Benghazi for the better part of 2 years.
The obstruction part, idk. There’s an argument to be made but it’s very politically perilous. They got Nixon on obstruction but it was also clear at that point that he was heavily involved in the watergate break in. I don’t think the public is going to go for obstruction on a crime Trump did not personally commit. Investigations against Trump will continue, especially since Dems control the house and Mueller handed stuff off to New York State.
Wrongdoing should be investigated of course, but I really think the best way to beat Trump is on policy and the fact that after serving for a few years, he is still the least qualified president in modern times and is unfit for the job. Whatever these investigations uncover, it’s just going to confirm that he is corrupt and a con artist. People knew these things going into the last election and decided that was acceptable. Unless we find out something really salacious like he’s a pedo or that he paid a woman off for a an abortion, investigations aren’t going to move the needle all that much. Hopefully Dems look at their 2018 victories and use what got them there to win the presidency.
The “we wasted tax payer money on the investigation” argument is dumb and hypocritical especially coming from the same people who cried about emails and Benghazi for the better part of 2 years.
The obstruction part, idk. There’s an argument to be made but it’s very politically perilous. They got Nixon on obstruction but it was also clear at that point that he was heavily involved in the watergate break in. I don’t think the public is going to go for obstruction on a crime Trump did not personally commit. Investigations against Trump will continue, especially since Dems control the house and Mueller handed stuff off to New York State.
Wrongdoing should be investigated of course, but I really think the best way to beat Trump is on policy and the fact that after serving for a few years, he is still the least qualified president in modern times and is unfit for the job. Whatever these investigations uncover, it’s just going to confirm that he is corrupt and a con artist. People knew these things going into the last election and decided that was acceptable. Unless we find out something really salacious like he’s a pedo or that he paid a woman off for a an abortion, investigations aren’t going to move the needle all that much. Hopefully Dems look at their 2018 victories and use what got them there to win the presidency.