illinilaw08

The quote that I lifted absolutely pertains. Crowley says in the article that he can't put himself on another ballot because of residency requirements. The quote says that election lawyers disagree with that stance. Now, maybe there's a law out there that says it is "a fraud of the electorate" to run for an office just to remove oneself from another ballot (for the record, if Crowley really is throwing his support behind Osacio-Cortez, isn't he committing "fraud of the electorate" by not removing himself from this ballot in any way possible?). I don't know because the article doesn't address that issue. If that exists, please enlighten me.

Per that NYT article that is not even a little true. "There are no residency requirements, however, for some offices, and election lawyers say Mr. Crowley could put his name in nomination for any number of positions."

Seriously, dude. Balta and SB already hit on this, so this is probably piling on, but my post literally mentioned that the article cites to, and provides links to, studies on the subject. Did you think Nancy Pelosi conducted all those studies?

I agree with this point as well. And it's not as easy to just change jobs to one that has better benefits as some legislators would like you to believe. For the record, I work for a small law firm that has absolutely spectacular health benefits - and I recognize just how lucky that I am to have that.

Health care is expensive, and I tend to agree that policy in this country far too frequently ignores the impact on small businesses. With that being said, the obvious solution to the problems with the ACA is Medicare for All, or some similar policy. For profit health insurance either covers too few people, or prices people out of the market when the pool gets expanded.

The fact that the US has had (and probably continues to have) terrible foreign policy - particularly in Latin and South America - does not give Russia carte blanche to interfere in US elections.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/deaths-health-care-bill/ Link to a discussion of the issue - and the article includes links to all the studies it cites. Basically, millions is hyperbole, but people without health insurance see the doctor less, leading to serious issues not getting caught, leading to people dying. One study found a 6.1% decrease in mortality since the ACA. Another study attributed 18,000 deaths in 2000 in "nonelderly adults" to lack of health insurance. It's a real issue - access to healthcare saves lives.

If the Republicans filibustered a law that would require heightened disclosure, I definitely think that it's super realistic that 2/3 of both houses of Congress will propose a Constitutional Amended overturning Citizen's United. You are hoping for something unrealistic, and you are blaming both parties for a problem that one party clearly wants to do something about, and one party does not. In support you refer to "scumbags" from both parties without any additional support. And why do you think Citizen's United was correctly decided? I find the dissent far more compelling than the majority opinion or either of the two concurrences. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf Edit: I think there are certainly Democrats who are willing to sell out their principles to corporate interests. Here's a great example! https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/ So there are definitely issues that are both sides are bad. But campaign finance reform in the wake of Citizen's United has a pretty clear line between the parties' respective position on each.

You called the entire Senate "scumbags." I'm not sure how different that is than calling all politicians crooks. My point is that calling all politicians crooks or scumbags creates a false equivalency between the parties - and between politicians within those parties. If everybody is a crook, then only an outsider can possibly change things for the better.

You said, "But of course the scumbags in both parties in the Senate who just want to pile up as many short term wins as possible don't have the courage for such a thing."

Yeah, I went back and looked at the decision, and this is right. Kennedy's opinion in Citizen's United says that independent expenditures on behalf of a party or candidate (as opposed to direct donations to the party or candidate) can only be regulated (ie, disclosure requirements), and cannot be capped or limited without running afoul of the First Amendment guarantee of a right to free speech. Thus, Citizen's United CAN'T be overturned by legislation and would require either an amendment to the Constitution (which isn't going to happen) or for SCOTUS to change its mind of the issue (also not going to happen). PACs and Super PACs are therefore the law of the land. If you wanted money out of politics, you needed SCOTUS to be a little left of Kennedy when Citizen's United was decided.

There's too much nuance involved in that analysis. If somebody says "all politicians are crooks" they aren't implicitly saying "but to varying degrees." I agree with you generally that people should dive deeper into that discussion, though. I think, for example, that the Democratic Party is bad because the party itself is controlled by moneyed interests who too frequently try to pull the Party to the center on policy - a center that the Republican Party keeps dragging further to the right. I obviously think that the Republican Party is many, many degrees worse at the moment. But me saying "both parties are bad" still doesn't implicitly include the rest of the discussion...

When we say "both parties are bad" we create an equivalency between them. If all politicians are crooks, then people become disillusioned and don't vote - what do policies matter if everyone is terrible. If all politicians are crooks, you open the door for Donald Trump to resonate because he's telling it like it is. Leaving personal politics out of the equation, IMO, that narrative is dangerous and it leads to apathy.

The problem with this is that the "game" already took place. The Republicans stole a seat from President Obama by changing the rules. Until that seat has been restored, I would be hard pressed to agree to "no games."

If the Democrats took control of the Senate, then they could vote to not confirm a justice who they considered to be too conservative. That could ultimately lead to a much more moderate judge ultimately being appointed. So, yeah, that's exactly what they could do...

Dude, you are the one who said that you are happy with this because "a lot of bad people will be angered by it." Just as an easy example, Kennedy was the deciding vote in Obergfell, which said that the Constitution protected gay marriage. The vote was 5-4. If Kavanaugh is more conservative than Kennedy (definitely the case based on his time at the DC Circuit), it is reasonable to conclude that gay rights at SCOTUS could be negatively impacted by the confirmation of Kavanaugh. Without specifying what bad people you are so glad this appointment will troll, you seem to be flat out ignoring the fact that SCOTUS decisions make a tangible impact on actual people's lives...

McConnell is behaving here like the annoying kid in your grade school. He keeps changing the rules to ensure that he wins. Yes, McConnell says, we can't consider a Supreme Court Justice in an election year - but only if it's a PRESIDENTIAL election. Obviously he didn't mean the midterms!

It's a really good read. Strongly recommended.

Jenks, this is the stuff that I'm talking about in the other thread though. We can't normalize this type of authoritarian behavior from the President of the United States. There needs to be forceful condemnation of these types of words from both sides of the aisle. I agree with you that those words probably didn't cause this specific shooting, but they are still completely and utterly unacceptable. And until his own party actually calls him out on this, nothing is going to change.

So, I'm reading In the Garden of Beasts right now, Erik Larson's (Devil in the White City) book about the American ambassador to Germany from 1933-1937. I haven't ever really touched the subject of how Hitler came to power, and how he was able to obtain popular support in Germany for objectively inhumane and horrible policies. In any event, as I'm reading, I note similarities between the events that Larson depicts (Nazi's attacking the "other" - in their case the Jews, their attacks on the press, and perhaps most startlingly, the number of instances of foreigners getting assaulted for not giving the Nazi salute during parades) and some of the things this administration has done (verbal attacks on immigrants - legal or illegal, attacks on the mainstream media as "fake news," and demonizing people for not standing during the National Anthem). Note, I'm obviously not saying that Donald Trump is Hitler. I don't bring these comparisons up to say that Donald Trump is about to start gas chambers for immigrants, or to invade the world. Rather, I think it's important to note some of the similarities between Hitler's rise to power, and the authoritarian nature of President Trump's behavior in office. The flag stuff, the military parade, the demonizing immigrants, the attacks on the press. The fact that he cozies up to Putin, and expresses admiration for Kim Jong Un and Duterte of the Philippines while attacking NATO and our allies. This is really authoritarian stuff. And this is the stuff that shouldn't be normalized, and that both sides of the aisle should be pushing back against hard. This is the stuff that transcends my team vs. your team. And we should be taking lessons from the rise of authoritarian leaders of the past (even, gasps, Adolf Hitler) to recognize the signs and push back against it.

Public sector unions do two things - they engage politically - donating to candidates, and making endorsements. But they also engage in non-political speech - collectively bargaining on behalf of the teachers, police, firefighters, etc. Prior to Janus, the Illinois law said that if you opted out of the public union, you still had to pay for the non-political part. Basically, you paid the union for the collective bargaining part - you weren't able to get the benefit of the union without paying. That amount was audited by the state to ensure that people who opted out weren't paying for political speech. But, now tell me how the collective bargaining side of things is political speech...

So that hospital no longer accepted insurance period?

Democrats favor strengthening the social safety net - no cuts to social security or Medicare, expanding health care access (Medicare for All is definitely more than just Bernie Sanders, Greg). Shoot, there are politicians and policy experts on the left that favor a Universal Basic Income - ie, if you are an American citizen, you are guaranteed a certain amount of money annually. There's money to do this stuff, but it requires reducing the amount of money that we spend on the military, or it requires raising taxes on high earners. If you are worried about what happens if you lose your job and can't find another one, one party definitely has policies that are intended to cushion your fall (that's the Democrats). The other party wants you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps while giving massive tax breaks to companies - tax breaks that end up benefiting shareholders far more than benefiting labor.

Greg, here's the problem with that line of thinking. Under your logic, no matter what the President does, we should root for him because the economy is all that matters. Slavery? Doesn't matter - tell me about the economy. Jim Crow laws? Doesn't matter - tell me about the economy. Internment of Japanese-Americans in the name of national security? Doesn't matter - tell me about the economy. When the impact on your pocketbook is the only thing that matters to you, it's easy to look the other way when other American's rights are trampled. I hope that Donald Trump fails miserably in trampling on the rights of other Americans. Edit to add: The slavery point is actually the best example here. When you don't have to pay your labor anything for the work that they do, the economy booms. In the first hundred years of our country, the South had unprecedented economic success using that model. But it was based on morally repugnant policy and, therefore, the right thing to do is to root against that immoral and evil policy, even if it hurts some people's pocketbooks.

Wow, that totally binding ceremonial document that President Trump and Kim Jong Un signed didn't completely eradicate nuclear missiles in North Korea?! Color me shocked...