Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: Yeah... he appointed his own people to these departments.
The holdovers from Obama administrations are likely going to lose their job because Trump is going to want his own peeps there...
...
As someone wisely said... elections has consequences.
So you would be perfectly fine if, for example, he put a pacifist with no military experience to be Defense Sec?
My opinion doesn't matter... President appoints, and Senate provides the up/down.
The Senate only has the powah here... they can even choose to NOT even bring the candidate to a vote.
What? It's nothing to do with whether he can, it's whether what is is doing it right. Did you not get that?
Of course I can policy differences with Trumpestos and his goonies at the agencies.
My point is, you can't expect holdovers from the Obama administration to remain in these Agencies if they're going to pull the same stunt as that acting AG. Whether we like it or not, Trumpesto is expected to have his own peeps at the agencies...
It's pointless to gnash your teeth that he puts someone there that is diametrically opposed to what the agencies have done in the past... the POTUS sets the agenda... the agencies ENACTS them.
It's our job as voters to hold him to account via the voting booth, or in warranted case, take him to court. (provided we have standing)
Don't play dumb Whem'. This isn't about leaving " holdovers from the Obama administration." Appointing people who a diametrically opposed to the exsitance and function of the agencies is a big deal. This isn't about "just a change in policy", this is about people who have done everything in their power to stop these agencies operating (because it cuts down on profit). Again, it's like putting a pacifist in charge of the military. Or a pedophile in charge of teaching third graders. But it only affects "liberal" causes like clean water, air, consumer and citizen protection and the environment, so of course you aren't concerned.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
It's a good start. Now we'll have to see if he is also going to nominate a SCOTUS judge that would rule against the same discrimination or if it will be a pick that would allow people to discriminate.
Frankly having people registered in multiple states and dead people registered isn't actually a problem we should concern ourselves with. That someone is on more than one rolls isn't a huge problem since you have to be in state to actually cast your vote, or apply for an absentee ballot which can only be issued if you meet certain requirements. We can confirm that someone only voted once with a simple multi-state cross checking system which already exists and is how they caught two people in 2016 who tried to vote twice in early voting.
It gives millions of people the ability to legally double vote. This can be a problem especially on college towns and jurisdictions with lots of snow refugees: Florida and Arizona for example. It should be a paramount issue to eliminate all voter fraud and abuse, as well as insure all lawful citizens can vote.
While I agree that having voter rolls regularly purged so they are more accurate that is a state issue and is easier said than done. If you moved from Texas to Wyoming how does the Texas Secretary of State's Election Division know that you have moved and that they need to remove you from the voter rolls? If you don't personally notify the Elections Division there is no mechanism in place that automatically tells them you left. The Elections Divisions can purge deceased voters by using the database of death certificates issued by the state but for people who move there's no database. The easiest way to purge people who left the state is to purge people who haven't voted but that can also result in people who haven't voted but simply not voting doesn't mean you left the state. One of our kids was born the day after Election Day and that year my wife didn't vote because she was way too pregnant to go to the polls. Is missing one election enough to get purged? How many elections do you have to abstain from to get purged? While accurate voter rolls is a good idea and harms no one making it a reality is quite complicated.
Simply force everyone in the state to "register" every year.
We do this anyway when we declare our personal property taxes (house, cars, if you're a renter)... that is, the state sends you a form of what they think you have, you return it with confirmation/addition so that the state can properly assess what taxes are owed at the end of the year.
Simply piggy back that same function... that's how you truly keep the voter rolls "clean".
I don't think forcing the state to go through the time and expense to register millions of voters over again every year is the right answer. Elections departments get swamped with registrations in the lead up to Election day every presidential cycle which is why so many voters get stuck with provisional ballots on election day.
Missouri handles property taxes differently than NC then. I just get the form that says I live at X address and the property has Y value. There's no need to send it back unless I've moved or I need to add other taxable property like boats or whatever or if I want to dispute my property valuation. Besides using tax forms as voter registration just complicates the paperwork for the state. You end up with the revenue dept needing to send forms and data over to the elections dept or you end up making the elections dept a subsidiary of the revenue dept etc.
In MO, you must send back your declaration, or face a fine.
I work in IT... as setting up a system whereby the revenue dept sends data to the elections depts is like the most basic, basicaspect of an IT infrastructure/DB management. If done right, it'll be cost effective too.
They way I look at it, EVERY citizen must file taxes in some way shape or form... even if you DON'T pay the state/feds anything. So, instead of re-inventing the wheel by orchestrating an independent workflow, simply piggyback an existing method (like the tax declaration/tax return process).
We do that for things like the selective service.
As kronk may say...lean six sigma this gak yo!
Alternatively nationalize it. The fed courts run it anyway.
The Federal courts rule on Federal election laws but the Federal govt doesn't have an agency that actually administrates federal elections that's all done on the state level.
whembly wrote: Yeah... he appointed his own people to these departments.
The holdovers from Obama administrations are likely going to lose their job because Trump is going to want his own peeps there...
...
As someone wisely said... elections has consequences.
So you would be perfectly fine if, for example, he put a pacifist with no military experience to be Defense Sec?
My opinion doesn't matter... President appoints, and Senate provides the up/down.
The Senate only has the powah here... they can even choose to NOT even bring the candidate to a vote.
What? It's nothing to do with whether he can, it's whether what is is doing it right. Did you not get that?
Of course I can policy differences with Trumpestos and his goonies at the agencies.
My point is, you can't expect holdovers from the Obama administration to remain in these Agencies if they're going to pull the same stunt as that acting AG. Whether we like it or not, Trumpesto is expected to have his own peeps at the agencies...
It's pointless to gnash your teeth that he puts someone there that is diametrically opposed to what the agencies have done in the past... the POTUS sets the agenda... the agencies ENACTS them.
It's our job as voters to hold him to account via the voting booth, or in warranted case, take him to court. (provided we have standing)
Don't play dumb Whem'. This isn't about leaving " holdovers from the Obama administration." Appointing people who a diametrically opposed to the exsitance and function of the agencies is a big deal. This isn't about "just a change in policy", this is about people who have done everything in their power to stop these agencies operating (because it cuts down on profit). Again, it's like putting a pacifist in charge of the military. Or a pedophile in charge of teaching third graders. But it only affects "liberal" causes like clean water, air, consumer and citizen protection and the environment, so of course you aren't concerned.
What is the proper role and function of the Dept of Education? Or the Dept of Energy? Or the Dept of Homeland Security? The Dept of Ed has only been operating since 1980, The Dept of Energy began operating in 1977, Homeland security started in 2002, HUD was formed in 1965. The majority of the cabinet departments are relatively new creations in US history, they're not mentioned in the constitution, their mission and proper function changes with every new president. What is the benchmark you're using to determine the efficacy and proper usage of these departments? Policies under Obama were different than under Clinton which were different than during the Reagan administration etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 17:53:16
Sentinel1 wrote: People say Trump is moving the U.S.A forward in a bad way. If Clinton had won, the U.S.A would have been moving two steps back. She would have been continuing the Democrats policies, white-washing over the developing cracks and ignoring the deepening social divides. If Clinton had won everyone here would be moaning about her being a bad leader, that there was no change in the system and that there relatives sons, daughters, child's, future existence was on the brink of disaster. So either way things wouldn't have been good for all those pessimists out there.
The kind of leader Clinton would have been was well evidenced in her desertion without a word to her supporters on election night when she lost.
So I guess we knew what kind of leader Trump was going to be when, after losing the debates, he fled the stage and told the media he had won thanks to "alternative facts" from online polls.
Winning the election doesn't mean one "won" the debates, and in fact one can become president with only about a quarter of the popular vote and potentially fewer than one in fifteen americans casting a vote for that candidate. Winning the election is a much different thing, as most votes are effectively pointless and only a relatively small handful of voted in a small number of places actually have a decisive impact.
Besides...to call what was passed off as "Debates" as such is to rob the term of any actual meaning, though thats not new, just a new low.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 18:34:58
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
"Winning the election doesn't mean one "won" the debates, and in fact one can become president with only about a quarter of the popular vote and potentially fewer than one in fifteen americans casting a vote for that candidate. Winning the election is a much different thing, as most votes are effectively pointless and only a relatively small handful of voted in a small number of places actually have a decisive impact."
crimsondave wrote: "Winning the election doesn't mean one "won" the debates, and in fact one can become president with only about a quarter of the popular vote and potentially fewer than one in fifteen americans casting a vote for that candidate. Winning the election is a much different thing, as most votes are effectively pointless and only a relatively small handful of voted in a small number of places actually have a decisive impact."
A quarter? One in fifteen?
Clinton: 48.2%
Trump: 46.1%
I didnt say that's what happened, I said its whats possible, and why translating popular voting on things like debate performance doesnt translate to election results since the popular vote doesnt translate to election victory.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
crimsondave wrote: "Winning the election doesn't mean one "won" the debates, and in fact one can become president with only about a quarter of the popular vote and potentially fewer than one in fifteen americans casting a vote for that candidate. Winning the election is a much different thing, as most votes are effectively pointless and only a relatively small handful of voted in a small number of places actually have a decisive impact."
A quarter? One in fifteen?
Clinton: 48.2%
Trump: 46.1%
Vaktathi was referring to the hypothetical, not Trump's specific popular vote loss.
A hypothetical President can hypothetically become president with as few as 1 in 15 votes cast, due to the way the electoral college works.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Ok. That seems highly unlikely, but possible I guess. I like the system myself, but I live in small state. I understand why those in larger states would not like it.
whembly wrote: Yeah... he appointed his own people to these departments.
The holdovers from Obama administrations are likely going to lose their job because Trump is going to want his own peeps there...
...
As someone wisely said... elections has consequences.
So you would be perfectly fine if, for example, he put a pacifist with no military experience to be Defense Sec?
My opinion doesn't matter... President appoints, and Senate provides the up/down.
The Senate only has the powah here... they can even choose to NOT even bring the candidate to a vote.
What? It's nothing to do with whether he can, it's whether what is is doing it right. Did you not get that?
Of course I can policy differences with Trumpestos and his goonies at the agencies.
My point is, you can't expect holdovers from the Obama administration to remain in these Agencies if they're going to pull the same stunt as that acting AG. Whether we like it or not, Trumpesto is expected to have his own peeps at the agencies...
It's pointless to gnash your teeth that he puts someone there that is diametrically opposed to what the agencies have done in the past... the POTUS sets the agenda... the agencies ENACTS them.
It's our job as voters to hold him to account via the voting booth, or in warranted case, take him to court. (provided we have standing)
Don't play dumb Whem'. This isn't about leaving " holdovers from the Obama administration." Appointing people who a diametrically opposed to the exsitance and function of the agencies is a big deal. This isn't about "just a change in policy", this is about people who have done everything in their power to stop these agencies operating (because it cuts down on profit). Again, it's like putting a pacifist in charge of the military. Or a pedophile in charge of teaching third graders. But it only affects "liberal" causes like clean water, air, consumer and citizen protection and the environment, so of course you aren't concerned.
It's not playing dumb dude... it's being pragmatic.
Cheeto Jesus is justified in wanting his own peeps to head these agencies.
If these yahoo does something bad, there are plethora of watchdog entities whom are more than willing to take 'em to court.
whembly wrote: Yeah... he appointed his own people to these departments.
The holdovers from Obama administrations are likely going to lose their job because Trump is going to want his own peeps there...
...
As someone wisely said... elections has consequences.
So you would be perfectly fine if, for example, he put a pacifist with no military experience to be Defense Sec?
My opinion doesn't matter... President appoints, and Senate provides the up/down.
The Senate only has the powah here... they can even choose to NOT even bring the candidate to a vote.
What? It's nothing to do with whether he can, it's whether what is is doing it right. Did you not get that?
Of course I can policy differences with Trumpestos and his goonies at the agencies.
My point is, you can't expect holdovers from the Obama administration to remain in these Agencies if they're going to pull the same stunt as that acting AG. Whether we like it or not, Trumpesto is expected to have his own peeps at the agencies...
It's pointless to gnash your teeth that he puts someone there that is diametrically opposed to what the agencies have done in the past... the POTUS sets the agenda... the agencies ENACTS them.
It's our job as voters to hold him to account via the voting booth, or in warranted case, take him to court. (provided we have standing)
Don't play dumb Whem'. This isn't about leaving " holdovers from the Obama administration." Appointing people who a diametrically opposed to the exsitance and function of the agencies is a big deal. This isn't about "just a change in policy", this is about people who have done everything in their power to stop these agencies operating (because it cuts down on profit). Again, it's like putting a pacifist in charge of the military. Or a pedophile in charge of teaching third graders. But it only affects "liberal" causes like clean water, air, consumer and citizen protection and the environment, so of course you aren't concerned.
It's not playing dumb dude... it's being pragmatic.
Cheeto Jesus is justified in wanting his own peeps to head these agencies.
If these yahoo does something bad, there are plethora of watchdog entities whom are more than willing to take 'em to court.
Wanting someone he can trust and who is qualified shouldn't be exclusive.
And the main concern isn't so much them doing something, as not doing anything. Slashing and weakening what environmental regulations they can, Not going after people who break the intact regulations. It's the same with the FCC, the new chair not only opposes the existing NN rules, but refuses to even say whether or not he supports it in principle. Things designed to protect people and the environment are being used against them.
Vaktathi wrote: Winning the election doesn't mean one "won" the debates, and in fact one can become president with only about a quarter of the popular vote and potentially fewer than one in fifteen americans casting a vote for that candidate. Winning the election is a much different thing, as most votes are effectively pointless and only a relatively small handful of voted in a small number of places actually have a decisive impact.
Besides...to call what was passed off as "Debates" as such is to rob the term of any actual meaning, though thats not new, just a new low.
The people who counted were persuaded by his stirring oratory, though, putting him in office. I call that a win.
Relapse wrote: The people who counted were persuaded by his stirring oratory, though, putting him in office. I call that a win.
Let's not pretend that Trump actually did anything to earn his votes. Trump won because ~60 million people will reflexively vote for anyone with an R next to their name, no matter how obviously terrible.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Vaktathi wrote: Winning the election doesn't mean one "won" the debates, and in fact one can become president with only about a quarter of the popular vote and potentially fewer than one in fifteen americans casting a vote for that candidate. Winning the election is a much different thing, as most votes are effectively pointless and only a relatively small handful of voted in a small number of places actually have a decisive impact.
Besides...to call what was passed off as "Debates" as such is to rob the term of any actual meaning, though thats not new, just a new low.
The people who counted were persuaded by his stirring oratory, though, putting him in office. I call that a win.
Hrm, thats something of a stretch. The single most defining thing with Clintons loss was probably the Comey mishap, you can go on 538's trend analysis and there's a clear tipping point there at that moment where her chances start to fall and Trumps start to rise, while the debates tended to raise Clintons numbers.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Wanting someone he can trust and who is qualified shouldn't be exclusive.
Well: 1. Normally I would agree but this aint the Bush Sr. cabinet now is it... 2. I think in addition to trust, you need "sucks up bigtime," I mean even more than normal.
The single most defining thing with Clintons loss was
...nominating Clinton.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 19:40:52
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Vaktathi wrote: Winning the election doesn't mean one "won" the debates, and in fact one can become president with only about a quarter of the popular vote and potentially fewer than one in fifteen americans casting a vote for that candidate. Winning the election is a much different thing, as most votes are effectively pointless and only a relatively small handful of voted in a small number of places actually have a decisive impact.
Besides...to call what was passed off as "Debates" as such is to rob the term of any actual meaning, though thats not new, just a new low.
The people who counted were persuaded by his stirring oratory, though, putting him in office. I call that a win.
Hrm, thats something of a stretch. The single most defining thing with Clintons loss was probably the Comey mishap, you can go on 538's trend analysis and there's a clear tipping point there at that moment where her chances start to fall and Trumps start to rise, while the debates tended to raise Clintons numbers.
Yeah, we're talking about the same "stirring oratory" that saw Trump go completely silent during the week before the election while Comey's nothing-letter ran rampant across the news.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 19:42:12
Wanting someone he can trust and who is qualified shouldn't be exclusive.
Well:
1. Normally I would agree but this aint the Bush Sr. cabinet now is it...
2. I think in addition to trust, you need "sucks up bigtime," I mean even more than normal.
He's a shallow man... stroke his ego and you'll be fine.
The single most defining thing with Clintons loss was
Relapse wrote: The people who counted were persuaded by his stirring oratory, though, putting him in office. I call that a win.
Let's not pretend that Trump actually did anything to earn his votes. Trump won because ~60 million people will reflexively vote for anyone with an R next to their name, no matter how obviously terrible.
In all fairness, we'd have nothing but Republican presidents if that were true. Besides, Clinton was a rotten candidate to put forward in this surreal election.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 19:45:59
Relapse wrote: The people who counted were persuaded by his stirring oratory, though, putting him in office. I call that a win.
Let's not pretend that Trump actually did anything to earn his votes. Trump won because ~60 million people will reflexively vote for anyone with an R next to their name, no matter how obviously terrible.
My girlfriend's mom = perfect example. She hates, hates, hates trump, but she was forced to vote for him because he's a republican. I asked why she was forced, and she said because she always votes republican no matter what. I remember my grandparents were the same way, only for Democrats. The whole party thing is just stupid to me. We should be voting for the person who's the best for the job, but that will never happen. All we get to choose from are giant douches and turd sandwiches. Every. Single. Time.
Vaktathi wrote: Winning the election doesn't mean one "won" the debates, and in fact one can become president with only about a quarter of the popular vote and potentially fewer than one in fifteen americans casting a vote for that candidate. Winning the election is a much different thing, as most votes are effectively pointless and only a relatively small handful of voted in a small number of places actually have a decisive impact.
Besides...to call what was passed off as "Debates" as such is to rob the term of any actual meaning, though thats not new, just a new low.
The people who counted were persuaded by his stirring oratory, though, putting him in office. I call that a win.
Hrm, thats something of a stretch. The single most defining thing with Clintons loss was probably the Comey mishap, you can go on 538's trend analysis and there's a clear tipping point there at that moment where her chances start to fall and Trumps start to rise, while the debates tended to raise Clintons numbers.
Yeah, we're talking about the same "stirring oratory" that saw Trump go completely silent during the week before the election while Comey's nothing-letter ran rampant across the news.
The man is magnificent. He knows when to awaken the hearts of the people and when to let his silence speak for him.
Relapse wrote: The people who counted were persuaded by his stirring oratory, though, putting him in office. I call that a win.
Let's not pretend that Trump actually did anything to earn his votes. Trump won because ~60 million people will reflexively vote for anyone with an R next to their name, no matter how obviously terrible.
I guess enough of those 60 million moved to blue states from red after the 2012 election to cause those blue states to flip.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CONFIRMED: Trump will pick Judge Neil Gorsuch tonight, youngest SCOTUS pick in 30 years. https://t.co/lakw5LrAqa — Benny (@bennyjohnson) January 31, 2017
CNN reporting Gorsuch is the frontrunner for SCOTUS. Easy way to unite the GOP...
— Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) January 31, 2017
Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, and confirmed shortly thereafter. Both his pre-judicial resumé and his body of work as a judge make him a natural fit for an appointment to the Supreme Court by a Republican president. He is relatively young (turning 50 this year), and his background is filled with sterling legal and academic credentials. He was a Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford, graduated from Harvard Law School, clerked for prominent conservative judges (Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court), and was a high-
ranking official in the Bush Justice Department before his judicial appointment. He is celebrated as a keen legal thinker and a particularly incisive legal writer, with a flair that matches
— or at least evokes — that of the justice whose seat he would be nominated to fill. In fact, one study has identified him as the most natural successor to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Trump shortlist, both in terms of his judicial style and his substantive approach.
With perhaps one notable area of disagreement, Judge Gorsuch’s prominent decisions bear the comparison out. For one thing, the great compliment that Gorsuch’s legal writing is in a class with Scalia’s is deserved: Gorsuch’s opinions are exceptionally clear and routinely entertaining; he is an unusual pleasure to read, and it is always plain exactly what he thinks and why. Like Scalia, Gorsuch also seems to have a set of judicial/ideological commitments apart from his personal policy preferences that drive his decision-making. He is an ardent textualist (like Scalia); he believes criminal laws should be clear and interpreted in favor of defendants even if that hurts government prosecutions (like Scalia); he is skeptical of efforts to purge religious expression from public spaces (like Scalia); he is highly dubious of legislative history (like Scalia); and he is less than enamored of the dormant commerce clause (like Scalia). In fact, some of the parallels can be downright eerie. For example, the reasoning in Gorsuch’s 2008 concurrence in United States v. Hinckley, in which he argues that one possible reading of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act would probably violate the rarely invoked non-delegation principle, is exactly the same as that of Scalia’s 2012 dissent in Reynolds v. United States. The notable exception is one prominent concurrence last August, in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, in which Gorsuch criticized a doctrine of administrative law (called Chevron deference) that Scalia had long defended. Even here, however, there may be more in common than meets the eye.
Religion
Some of the most high-profile cases in which Gorsuch has cast a vote have involved the religion clauses of the Constitution (those prohibiting the establishment of religion and creating a right to free exercise), as well as congressional statutes expanding protection for religious adherents (known as RFRA and RLUIPA). Followers of the Supreme Court will recognize two recent cases in which Gorsuch participated on the 10th Circuit, Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell. In Hobby Lobby, Gorsuch wrote a concurrence in the en banc 10th Circuit that sided with the company and its owners. He stressed the need to accept these parties’ own conceptions regarding the requirements of their faith, and held (among other things) that they were likely to prevail on claims that the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act substantially burdened their religious exercise in violation of RFRA. This position was largely vindicated in the subsequent decision by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, in Little Sisters of the Poor, Gorsuch joined a group of 10th Circuit judges who dissented from denial of rehearing en banc when a panel of the court of appeals ruled against the Little Sisters on their RFRA claims about the same ACA mandate. There, again, the point was that the 10th Circuit had shown insufficient deference to the Little Sisters’ own articulation of the tenets of their religious beliefs. That position, too, was at least partially vindicated by the Supreme Court when it decided that the Little Sisters’ religious beliefs probably could be accommodated while still affording full and equal contraceptive coverage to their employees, and directed the parties and courts to consider such a solution on remand. Simply put, in cases that closely divided his court and the Supreme Court, Gorsuch has shown himself to be an ardent defender of religious liberties and pluralistic accommodations for religious adherents.
Gorsuch has also written or joined opinions – again, largely vindicated by the Supreme Court – that have criticized doctrines that limit religious expression in public spaces. In Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, in 2007, Gorsuch joined a dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in a case in which the 10th Circuit had limited the ability of the government to display a donated Ten Commandments monument in a public park without accepting all other offers of donated monuments. The subsequent Supreme Court decision reversing the 10th Circuit largely adopted the reasoning of that dissent. Gorsuch also has a pair of dissenting opinions in which he criticizes the “reasonable observer” test for establishment clause cases as far too likely to find impermissible endorsements of religion by the government when none was intended, and thus to prevent religious adherents from reasonably participating in public life. These cases are American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport, in 2010, and Green v. Haskell County Boad. of Commissioners, in 2009. The common thread in these cases is one that matters very deeply to conservatives: a sense that the government can permit public displays of religion – and can accommodate deeply held religious views – without either violating the religion clauses of the Constitution or destroying the effectiveness of government programs that occasionally run into religious objections. In his 2009 concurrence in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, Scalia articulated very similar views. Gorsuch’s opinions on these issues are quite thoughtful, and demonstrate that he would be a natural successor to Scalia in adopting a pro-religion conception of the establishment clause.
Criminal Law
Another area in which Gorsuch has written persuasively in a manner that closely echoes Scalia relates to how to interpret criminal laws correctly, so as to avoid criminalizing potentially innocent conduct. One of Gorsuch’s most notable opinions in this area also happens to overlap with the hot-button issue of gun ownership — although the case is not about the Second Amendment, and doesn’t involve anything like the typical gun-rights groups.
A federal criminal law prohibits the knowing possession of a gun by a felon. This law has given rise to a debate about how best to read its limitation to “knowing” violations: Does it apply whenever a felon knowingly possesses a gun, or must violators also know that they have been convicted of a felony? This matters, because lots of minor crimes might technically be felonies, and lots of dispositions that seem inconsequential (because they involve no jail time) might technically be felony convictions. And the penalties for violating this law can be very high. In United States v. Games-Perez, in 2012, Gorsuch urged the 10th Circuit to review its rule holding that it is enough to support a conviction that the defendant knew he possessed the gun, whether or not he knew he was a felon. The opinion is an example of Gorsuch’s strong commitment to textualism, and a severe critique of using legislative history — particularly to make criminal what might otherwise be innocent. Accordingly, it is easy to hear clear echoes of Scalia’s views regarding the proper reading of statutes — especially criminal statutes — as well as the importance of focusing on ordinary usage and linguistic rules.
A few examples make the resemblance even clearer. Take this sentence from Games-Perez: “For current purposes, just stating Capps‘s holding makes the problem clear enough: its interpretation—reading Congress’s mens rea requirement as leapfrogging over the first statutorily specified element and touching down only at the second listed element—defies grammatical gravity and linguistic logic.” Or this passage, which contains both an endorsement of Second Amendment rights and a classic Scalia principle about attaching mens rea requirements to the element that criminalizes innocent conduct:
Besides, even if the government could somehow manage to squeeze an ambiguity out of the plain statutory text before us, it faces another intractable problem. The Supreme Court has long recognized a “presumption” grounded in our common law tradition that a mens rea requirement attaches to “each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct.” … Together §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2) operate to criminalize the possession of any kind of gun. But gun possession is often lawful and sometimes even protected as a matter of constitutional right. The only statutory element separating innocent (even constitutionally protected) gun possession from criminal conduct in §§ 922(g) and 924(a) is a prior felony conviction. So the presumption that the government must prove mens rea here applies with full force.
Either of these passages would be perfectly at home in a canonical Scalia opinion about how to read the criminal law. And, it is worth noting, this means that Gorsuch, just like Scalia, is sometimes willing to read criminal laws more narrowly in a way that disfavors the prosecution – especially when the Second Amendment or another constitutional protection is involved.
Death Penalty
Gorsuch, like Scalia, has not been a friendly vote for death penalty petitioners pursuing relief from their sentences through federal habeas. But it is important to recognize that, as in the case of Scalia, this makes plenty of sense in light of Gorsuch’s commitment to reading statutes according to their plain text. During the 1990s, Congress passed a statute called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that – true to its name – was intended to limit federal habeas in order to make the death penalty easier to carry out. Strict readers of AEDPA are unlikely to find many cases in which a petitioner qualifies for relief. This is particularly true in the courts of appeals, where many of the death penalty habeas cases are uncontroversial —or at least not nearly as close as the cases that make their way to the Supreme Court. Whatever the source of the position, however, it is clear that Gorsuch’s position in death penalty cases is likely to be quite close to Scalia’s, and very unlikely to make the court any more solicitous of the claims of capital defendants.
Dormant Commerce Clause
Another area of the law in which Gorsuch has shown both his writing talent and his similarity to Scalia is in the application (and critique) of doctrines surrounding the so-called “dormant commerce clause.” These doctrines treat the commerce clause not only as a grant of power to Congress to make laws regulating interstate commerce, but as a kind of presumptive limitation on the power of states to make laws that either unduly burden or unfairly discriminate against interstate commerce, without regard to whether Congress has ever passed a law in the relevant area. Because — as its name suggests — the dormant commerce clause cannot actually be found in the text of the Constitution, Scalia eventually came around to the view that it should not be a thing, and refused to endorse any future expansions of the doctrine. For example, in 2015, in a dissenting opinion in Comptroller v. Wynne, Scalia stated: “The fundamental problem with our negative Commerce Clause cases is that the Constitution does not contain a negative Commerce Clause.” Although a court of appeals judge lacks the same freedom to disparage and/or depart from existing Supreme Court precedent, Gorsuch’s opinions also reveal a measure of distrust towards unwritten constitutional provisions like the dormant commerce clause.
For example, a 2015 10th Circuit decision written by Gorsuch, Energy and Environment Legal Institute v. Epel, declined to apply the dormant commerce clause to strike down a clean-energy program created by Colorado on the grounds that it might negatively affect traditional energy producers outside the state. The opinion explains that this result is consistent with the limited reach of the dormant commerce clause’s “judicial free trade policy” even under existing precedent. But while acknowledging that lower courts must take the Supreme Court’s doctrine as they find it, Gorsuch’s opinion shows respect for the doctrine’s “[d]etractors,” like Scalia, who “find dormant commerce doctrine absent from the Constitution’s text and incompatible with its structure.” Though Gorsuch’s personal constitution seems to require him to write clearly about the many unclear aspects of the doctrine, his opinion plainly takes some joy in the act of demonstrating that not only does the dormant commerce clause not apply — the doctrine also doesn’t make much sense. That same instinct is present in a prominent concurrence last year in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, in which Gorsuch singled out one aspect of dormant commerce clause doctrine—the Quill rule that exempts out-of-state mail order sales from state sales tax—as an “analytical oddity” that “seems deliberately designed” to be overruled eventually. This opinion aligned him with Justice Anthony Kennedy (who has called for overruling Quill), and again with Scalia, who identified Quill as part of the “bestiary of ad hoc tests and ad hoc exceptions that we apply nowadays” under the dormant commerce clause.
The dormant commerce clause isn’t a particularly hot-button issue, nor does it have obvious liberal/conservative fault lines. But it’s noteworthy that criticism of the dormant commerce clause is of a piece with criticism of the “right to privacy” that undergirds the Supreme Court ‘s abortion jurisprudence, as well as other judge-made doctrines that do not have a strong connection to the constitutional text. Again, Gorsuch’s opinions seem to follow the lead of textualists and federalists like Scalia in expressing great skepticism towards such doctrines, which allow judges to strike down duly enacted local laws on the basis of vague principles that cannot be found in the concrete text of the national charter.
Administrative Law
Finally, there is administrative law—the one area that seems to demonstrate some real distance between Scalia and Gorsuch. Last August, Gorsuch made real waves in the normally sleepy world of administrative law by advocating the end of a doctrine that has been tied closely to the functioning of the administrative state and the executive branch since the mid-1980s — a doctrine called Chevron deference. The basic idea behind Chevron is that, when Congress enacts a broadly worded statute whose precise contours are ambiguous, the courts should permit the federal agencies that are charged with administering the statute to enforce it in any manner that is not clearly forbidden. Scalia was a judge on the D.C. Circuit (which does more agency review than any other court), and he was a strong advocate for Chevron’s basic take on agency review and the flexibility that it preserved in the administrative state: He often warned that the consequences of efforts to limit or tinker with its model could be severe. Gorsuch’s recent opinions in Gutierrez-Brizuela — he wrote both the majority opinion and a concurrence to his own opinion to express his personal views on the doctrine — expressly urge: “We managed to live with the administrative state before Chevron. We could do it again.” Ironically, Gorsuch’s chief complaint about Chevron doctrine was something that would have been close to Scalia’s heart — namely, that it empowers agencies to take the power of statutory interpretation away from courts, and subjects judicial decision-making to administrative review, rather than the other way around.
Gorsuch’s opinion — in which he stakes out ground that few have sought to defend — is a very compelling read, and it is unfair to try to summarize it in a few sentences. But it seems quite clear that: (1) Gorsuch’s views on administrative law are meaningfully different from Scalia’s in a way that could be described as even more conservative; and yet (2) the difference is not as profound as one might think. Unlike Scalia, Gorsuch really does want to apply the basic Gorsuch/Scalia take on ordinary statutes to administrative statutes as well. He believes even these broadly worded enforcement statutes have objective meanings that can be understood from their texts; that it is the job of the courts to say what those laws mean and to tell agencies when they do not have the best reading; and that if the agency disagrees, the only proper recourse is for Congress to change the law or the Supreme Court to correct the error. Scalia, on the other hand, wanted to limit courts to the role of reviewing agency implementations of these kinds of statutes for clear error in order to prevent “ossification,” recognizing that the understanding of these kinds of laws might need to change from time to time to accommodate changing priorities among presidents and changing conditions on the ground.
The reason that difference is less pronounced than you might think is that Scalia’s take on Chevron was always a little different from others’, in part to address the very concerns that Gorsuch so clearly articulates. First, Scalia was much more willing than others to say that a particular agency position was beyond the statutory bounds, even when the words at issue in the statute were ambiguous (at least in isolation). For example, in MCI Telecommunications Group v. AT&T, in 1994, Scalia held that the term “modify” unambiguously excludes major changes. In fact, in a Duke Law Journal piece in 1989 Scalia once said strict textualists like him (and, say, Judge Gorsuch) would be less likely to find statutes ambiguous for purposes of Chevron because of their attention to the details of statutory text and their unwillingness to consider broad purposes and legislative history. Such an approach makes a statute’s delegation to agencies much narrower, notwithstanding Chevron. And second, Scalia wanted Chevron to apply all the time precisely to avoid a situation in which a court would give the statute its best reading and the agency could later revise that understanding with the benefit of newfound deference — one of Gorsuch’s chief complaints. In Gutierrez-Brizuela, Gorsuch criticized the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X, which permitted an agency to bypass a Supreme Court decision through Chevron deference, echoing Scalia’s own dissent in Brand X, in which Scalia criticized the court for having adopted a version of Chevron that led to the spectacle of agencies bypassing Supreme Court readings of statutes.
In short, Gorsuch definitely has a different take from Scalia on the administrative state — one that grants it less power, and so accords even more closely with the conservative conception of small government. Indeed, this is an area in which Gorsuch is plainly a thought leader, expressing judicial sentiments many conservatives with similar concerns have rarely voiced, and which even Scalia might have bristled at. But given their parallel commitments to textualism and their parallel understandings of the relative roles of agencies and courts, even this seems like a bridgeable divide between Gorsuch and the justice he might replace. Gorsuch is still a very natural choice for any Republican president to nominate as a replacement for Scalia — someone who would espouse similar principles, stand firm on similar doctrinal commitments, reach similar outcomes, and even fill a similar role as one of the court’s most articulate defenders of conservative judicial theory.
My response if this indeed is going to be Trump's pick?
Relapse wrote: The people who counted were persuaded by his stirring oratory, though, putting him in office. I call that a win.
Let's not pretend that Trump actually did anything to earn his votes. Trump won because ~60 million people will reflexively vote for anyone with an R next to their name, no matter how obviously terrible.
I guess enough of those 60 million moved to blue states from red after the 2012 election to cause those blue states to flip.
Michigan:
Red gained 160,000, Blue lost 200,000
Wisconsin:
Red lost 2,500 votes, Blue lost 24,000
Pennsylvania:
Red gained 290,000 votes, Blue lost 28,000 votes
Ohio:
Red gained 180,000 votes , Blue lost 430,000 votes
In only one of those states did the Republicans gain more than the Democrats lost. And out of those four states, Ohio is the only state where Trump got more votes in 2016 than Obama did in 2012. Trump won, but he really needs to thank Clinton for running a horrible campaign. And people need to stop thinking that he has some sort of mandate. Especially with a narrow electoral college win and a popular vote loss. He had a very narrow win, and the landscape looks good for the GOP in 2018. But if 2016 showed us anything it should be to never underestimate the people you are pissing off.
A man who President Donald Trump has promoted as an authority on voter fraud was registered to vote in multiple states during the 2016 presidential election, the Associated Press has learned.
Gregg Phillips, whose unsubstantiated claim that the election was marred by 3 million illegal votes was tweeted by the president, was listed on the rolls in Alabama, Texas and Mississippi, according to voting records and election officials in those states. He voted only in Alabama in November, records show.
In a post earlier this month, Phillips described "an amazing effort" by volunteers tied to True the Vote, an organization whose board he sits on, who he said found "thousands of duplicate records and registrations of dead people."
Trump has made an issue of people who are registered to vote in more than one state, using it as one of the bedrocks of his overall contention that voter fraud is rampant in the U.S. and that voting by 3 to 5 million immigrants illegally in the country cost him the popular vote in November.
The AP found that Phillips was registered in Alabama and Texas under the name Gregg Allen Phillips, with the identical Social Security number. Mississippi records list him under the name Gregg A. Phillips, and that record includes the final four digits of Phillips' Social Security number, his correct date of birth and a prior address matching one once attached to Gregg Allen Phillips. He has lived in all three states.
In some ways it's the incredible incompetence of the new administration that is so frustrating.
nearly.
It honestly probably just goes to show how stupid a measure for fraud "registered in multiple states" is. I was probably registered in at least three states in 2016, simply because I didn't exactly call up the Election Boards in Kansas or Virginia that I had moved to Pennsylvania. Rolls are not purged frequently in many states, so once you're registered you can end up on their rolls for a long time. Hell for all I know I'm still registered in North Carolina from oh so many years ago. There are hordes of dead people on the rolls in many states because the rolls are never checked against obituaries so the people maintaining them don't know when someone dies unless you call them up and tell them which is not part of the usual "my dad died" procedures.
There are likely hordes of Americans registered in multiple states, but it's a piss poor indication of where they voted and it's terrible evidence of voter fraud.
Exactly to, but the point is that Trump has taken this guy's word that there were at least 3 million false votes cast, on the basis of there being people registered in more than one state.
The first actual double-voter found out very amusingly was a Trump voter, of course.
BigWaaagh wrote: What is it called when the guy crying 'Wolf' is flagrantly guilty himself...but let's just give Trump "a few more years" to work things out. NOPE.
"Trump has made an issue of people who are registered to vote in more than one state, using it is one of the bedrocks of his overall contention that voter fraud is rampant in the U.S. and that improper votes by 3 to 5 million "illegals" cost him the popular vote in November."
d-usa wrote: Interesting sound clip on the radio this morning, from Yates' confirmation hearing a few years back:
Sen. Sessions: "If the President issues an illegal order, should the AG or Deputy AG follow that order?"
Yates: "No, the AG or Deputy AG should follow the law and act as independent advisor to the POTUS."
So what was illegal about Trump's EO?
Spoiler:
Even she couldn't articulate that...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I wasnt a supporter of Trump during the campaign.
But I think now the media go a bit too far. Trump's EO about immigrants from seven muslim countries is not the end of the world.
When Obama does it... <crickets>
When Trump does it... people lose their minds.
See the pattern?
Exactly people are losing focus blaming the man for being the man, rather than remembering it isn't a new trick at all. In fact Obama drew up the plan but never implemented it. Trump took over shop and thought he'd make use of what was left of Obama's stock.
I forgot because Obama did it, it automatically makes it A-OKAY! Pack it up guys we got out played.
Well, no, it was okay because it was okay. See my discussion with Prestor Jon about the drone strikes for an example.
But to flip your argument, it was bad because Obama did it, and because Obama did it, it's okay for Trump to do it.
Frankly having people registered in multiple states and dead people registered isn't actually a problem we should concern ourselves with. That someone is on more than one rolls isn't a huge problem since you have to be in state to actually cast your vote, or apply for an absentee ballot which can only be issued if you meet certain requirements. We can confirm that someone only voted once with a simple multi-state cross checking system which already exists and is how they caught two people in 2016 who tried to vote twice in early voting.
It gives millions of people the ability to legally double vote. This can be a problem especially on college towns and jurisdictions with lots of snow refugees: Florida and Arizona for example. It should be a paramount issue to eliminate all voter fraud and abuse, as well as insure all lawful citizens can vote.
There is no evidence any of this has happened, though, so there is no reason for a paramount issue to eliminate all voter fraud.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.
I'll try to avoid going OT.
ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.
The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.
ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.
The USA was nearly strangled at birth, could have been snuffed out during the war of 1812, and was almost destroyed by its civil war. If Lee had won at Antietam, and the British had come over on the South's side, then the Union was finished, and we're looking at the CSA. That's how close it was...
The USA has survived many threats and challenges in its 250+ years, but it's still here because of the strength of those institutions, the foundations are strong, and its love of liberty will never die.
Yes, the war on terror was and has been a disaster IMO, but the best comparison I can make is Vietnam.
The War on Terror is Vietnam 2.0, and Trump is approaching Richard Nixon territory,
but the USA came through Vietnam and Nixon, and it will survive Trump, because the foundations are strong, very strong...
That's my take.
Lot's of good points and observations there. I find perspective to be the medicine to get through this Presidency, but then I look at the fact it's only been barely a week of Trump and, well, gak! Can't wait to see the SCOTUS choice..."shudder"!
Judge Trump after a year, or even 4 years, but the man has barely got his foot in the door. I think it's premature to be judging him this early.
I agree with you that lot of people need to calm down a bit.
I think I may have been too soothing in my commentary on perspective with Trump, because I'm really not of a mind to "calm down a bit", nor would I advise others to do so. I had that "wait-and-see" perspective around inauguration time, I even posted as much on these boards. But barely a week in and he's shown that his xenophobic, alt-reality, vindictive pettiness "bark" that we saw on the campaign trail, and were sickened by, is being translated into "bite". This POTUS needs to get the message that he doesn't have the privilege of operating a private company surrounded by his relatives and sycophants, but rather, is now CEO of a rather large and diverse publicly held and operated company...and the majority of shareholders don't like where he's steering the firm.
I don't see the problem, he built his businesses up from scratch. Why should he let other people ruin them? I understand that there is a certain conflict of interest, but a President would never get away with giving government contracts etc to their own private enterprises so why worry? There are worse people in power for mis-use of public interest. Just look at the leader of South Africa! He spent public money on a huge swimming pool for himself, and then got away with it by declaring it was an 'emergency water storage facility'. At least Trump is honest about his actions as President, it wasn't like he has tried to hide anything.
He built his businesses up from having millions of dollars, connnections and good will inherited from his real estate magnate father.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/01/31 20:25:53
It's really a comment on the state of things that I'm kind of happy with this pick. Not that I actually want another Scalia on the court, but at least he has the qualifications to be a judge. That's certainly more than you can say for most of the current administration...
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It's really a comment on the state of things that I'm kind of happy with this pick. Not that I actually want another Scalia on the court, but at least he has the qualifications to be a judge. That's certainly more than you can say for most of the current administration...
We could do worse, that's for sure.
My main area of concern will be for cases involving religion in denying services. For most other things I believe the other justices would balance him out. Judges don't always rule on the SCOTUS bench the same way they did on lower circuits. The stakes are different and the other judges get to argue with you, so he might moderate out a bit. Roberts might be a flip vote on cases he would be a strong right vote for.
Gorluch eh? Well I guess he picks a good one every third nominee or so. Excellent.
Should have picked Frazzled. "Is the new justice wearing...a Hawaiian shirt and drinking a Mai Tai on the bench?"
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
