StrangeSox

The chief wanted perfect stats, so cops were told to pin crimes on black people, probe found

DOJ actually enforcing antitrust laws for a change is good imo.

issue #1 in inevitable though and on the other side would be a much less byzantine system. Go to the doctor, get a minimal bill if any at all, no bullshit in-network/out-of-network co-pay deductible HSA FSA blah blah blah And yes obviously the second part is "this is not easy politically" which is why we didn't get the public option in 2010, thank you very much Mr. Lieberman (and every Republican).

here is how you improve it: abolish private insurers, Medicare 4 All, bing bing bong pretty simple

Kevin McCarthy admitted that all of the Benghazi committees were bullshit fishing expedition, and hey they turned up EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS so it was definitely worth it for them. The only point of this hearing is to further discredit any investigation into Trump, and it'll work on a non-zero segment of the population so of course its worth it to them.

we're seeing dumb show hearings in the House over Strzok's text messages but would love to see the text messages on Clinton by the NY FBI agents, also GOP politicians on Trump during the 2016 campaign. an example of exactly how dumb this show hearing is: "why didn't you talk about impeaching Clinton???"

porque no los dos?

smh can't believe bernie bro is launching a 3rd party sore-loser campaign against the woman who won the primary fair and square

While we're at it, lets go back to what CU was about, which was a challenge to the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that was designed specifically to address the increasing "soft money" influencing our politics, commonly known as McCain-Feingold. While it did have nominal bipartisan sponsorship, lets look at the actual vote totals: Passed the House on February 14, 2002 (H.R. 2356) (240–189 [R – 41–176, 5 NV ; D – 198–12, 1 NV ; I – 1–1, 0 NV]) Passed the Senate as the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" on March 20, 2002 (60–40 [R – 11–38, 0 NV ; D – 48–2, 0 NV ; I – 1–0, 0 NV]) 18% of R's in the House voted in favor, 94% of D's did 22% of R's in the Senate voted in favor, 96% of D's did And hey, let's go back even further! In 1992, Bush Sr. vetoed a similar measure passed by Democrats that would have restricted soft money. This is not a "both sides" issue. This is a "conservatives love soft money flooding our politics" issue. But it gets reduced to "scumbags in both parties" and "yeah sure I don't like the people who oppose it," completely letting Republicans off the hook for their actions going back decades. You couldn't ask for a better constructed example of the damage "both sideism" does to our politics.

Constitutional Amendments require 2/3's votes from both the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4's of the states. Given that we've seen nearly a decade of praise and defense of CU from Republicans and attacks on CU from Democrats, it doesn't seem like this issue really fits the "both sides are bad" mold very well, nor do I think the prospects of any changes coming from Republican-dominated federal and state governments look very good. We used to have stronger campaign finance laws federally and at the state level. Conservative Justices overturned them in a contentious ruling with a particularly unusual case history (look at how CU played out, it was far from normal). Conservatives have celebrated the ruling and the outcome for nearly a decade since while Democrats have opposed it. I don't expect a miracle court change to actually happen ever since McConnell kicked off our ongoing constitutional crisis by stealing an SC seat. As we all agreed before, Democrats are pretty ineffectual. I'm more or less resigned to the fact that we've got decades of a reactionary court striking down laws and potentially overturning a lot of good 20th century policy (Chevron, Roe, much of the New Deal, already gutted VRA, many more I'm sure) ahead of us. But I'm sure as hell not going to pretend that this is a "both sides" problem, because there's nothing in pre- or post-CU history that indicates it is.

Congress. Can't. Change. It. As long as there is a conservative majority on the court, it cannot be changed without a Constitutional Amendment directly curtailing free speech rights. I guess the important question is what you imagine a non-scumbag supermajority could realistically do that would withstand the Roberts Court? The people that voted for the bill in the House? 217 Democrats, 2 Republicans. In the Senate, it had support of all Democrats but was filibustered by Republicans. In 2012, it was voted on in the Senate again, and "failed" 51-44, thanks again to Republicans. Had it passed, the GOP-led House would never have even held a vote. So when you reduce it to "scumbags in both parties" and "the people who voted against" without noting that it was nearly unilaterally opposed by Republicans and supported by Democrats, you're again building a false equivalency that lets Republicans off the hook.

If we're talking in general, then yes the scale is absolutely orders of magnitude. If we're talking money in politics, then how is it irrelevant to your claim that the "scumbags in both parties" are preventing any change if...one party is routinely pushing for the extent of change allowed under CU and would appoint Justices likely to overturn CU while the other party strongly opposes those things? We used to have campaign finance laws. Republican Justices overturned them 5-4 in a manner that has severely limited what any hypothetical Congress can do short of a Constitutional Amendment. Democrats have proposed, multiple times, fixing what they can, though it is admittedly very limited by previously mentioned Republican Justices. How on earth does that ever equate to "scumbags in both parties?" I'm not sure what more the Democrats could even do at this point. They passed the limited measure allowed by CU through the House when they controlled and they had 59 votes in the Senate but were blocked by Republicans. The 4 liberals on the court still strongly reject the CU ruling, and a 5th liberal may have overturned it in a hypothetical future case. But that's still "scumbags in both parties." Okay.

Democrats Reintroduce DISCLOSE Act to Combat Dark Money "Poison" https://www.prwatch.org/news/2018/07/13366/democrats-reintroduce-disclose-act-combat-dark-money-poison I think your argument in this thread is actually a perfect example of how the "both sides" mindset poisons our politics and benefits Republicans. Democrats in the House passed a bill to combat dark money in the wake of CU. They had 59 votes for it in the Senate, but Republicans blocked it. Your response is to rail on the "scumbags" in "both parties" when it is very, very clearly one particular party that loves post-CU dark money flooding our political system and another party that tried to do what they could absent a constitutional amendment or overturning of CU. By insisting that it's "both sides," you completely let Republicans off the hook for their actual stances and actions while erasing the Democrats' efforts to change things.

It's also a matter of degree. What is the use of regularly needing to say "actually, both parties are corrupt!" if the scale of the corruption (or other political and policy issues) are orders of magnitude different? In practice, it provides plenty of cover for the increasingly radicalized party to continue and expand their actions under the cover of 'unbiased' "both sides are bad" coverage and analysis. Even beyond the potential jading effects on the average not-highly-partisan voter, it obliterates any real chance at nuanced understanding and discussion. Instead, that sort of both-sideism leads to superficial understanding and inaccurate criticisms. In this thread, NSS, you've said that both parties don't want to do something about corrupting money in politics, but that's plainly incorrect. You haven't really responded to multiple people pointing out to you how that analysis doesn't hold up, but it's the crux of the "both sides" charge here. There are a limited number of things we can do in a CU world, and Democrats would like to do them while Republicans do not. Republican Justices will almost certainly fully uphold CU while Democratic Justices would be likely to weaken it. Yet the problem is the "scumbags" in "both parties." Isn't it pretty clear how that stance lets the party that has actually implemented those policies and opposed reform off the hook? We see it over and over again. The sitting Republican President called for banning an entire religion; he's built concentration camps for children and he's proposed taking away AIDS funding to pay for it; they clearly stole a Supreme Court seat; he's called Nazis "Very Fine People" while engaging in the very same 'both sides' cover; they oppose any sort of campaign finance reform and celebrate CU and expansions of it to strike down state law; they engage in racial gerrymandering and widespread voter suppression; the GOP is the only major party to actively deny that global warming even exists let alone is caused by man; they have open white supremacists with important seats in the House. Where is the equivalent? What is the use of pointing out that the Democratic party is not perfect in response to the egregious problems within modern conservatism? That of course doesn't mean there is never room or reason to criticize Democrats, liberals, leftists, or anyone else. There's space and reason to do that now, just check out the infighting our very own Dem thread! But this is about the desire by a lot of moderates to reflexively reduce things to "both sides" at all times. Nuanced discussion requires careful thought, the opposite of that impulse. "Both sides" gives cover to bad faith actors, and it gives legitimacy to bad ideas.

The Montana case from 2012 (Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana) I linked on the last page is demonstrative of this. Kennedy's CU opinion has the infamous "we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" line. But back in the early 20th century, Montana enacted a campaign finance law specifically because the silver barrons were literally buying Senate seats (this was before Senate elections were popular elections and were instead chosen by state legislatures). They had very obvious and very apparent corruption. Montana had a history of why they needed this law that the state court documented extensively, and they still supported it and found it necessary. Leading up to the ruling, it was seen as a good test case for the SCOTUS to clarify their position in CU and lay out better guidelines of what is and isn't acceptable regulation. Well, they did, though pretty glibly. They did not hold oral arguments on the case, and this was the entirety of their opinion: With Citizens United held as the law of the land, Congress (including state Congresses) cannot pass any sort of meaningful campaign finance reform. There is no way to possibly stop say, Sheldon Adelson or the Koch Brothers or Soros or any other billionaire from spending tens of millions of dollars if they so choose. And what we've seen in many elections and referendums since CU, money generally wins. It certainly helps quite a bit. Maybe a 5-4 court with Garland would have completely overturned CU. It would have most likely at least pared it back. But the Federalist Society ideologues that McConnell is busy packing both the SCOTUS and lower level federal courts with are staunchly in favor of the CU ruling. There's no chance of a Constitutional Amendment passing that would meaningfully restrict these "free speech" rights while not hampering others. If we applied CU retroactively, Montana never would have been able to stop the Silver Barrons from buying up the legislature in the manner they did since, according to Kennedy, it's just not even conceivable that all this money could be corrupting or give the appearance of corruption. Sure, campaigns routinely do wink-and-nod illegal collaboration with "outside" groups and are never held accountable, but the 5 conservatives on the Supreme Court just still can't imagine how there's any corrupting influence from literally billions of dollars of funding. Perhaps CU was correctly decided. Maybe it's just another flaw in a political system originally devised in the 1780's. But if it is correct, then decades of campaign finance law were wrong, and we have to live in an unlimited outside cash political environment where corporations have every right actual living, breathing people do and money really does equal speech.

The Congress and the President can't act if the Roberts Court's interpretation of the 1st Amendment is correct. State legislatures and governors can't act, either. We would literally have to amend the Constitution, specifically our 1st amendment free speech rights, to be able to pass and enforce any sort of campaign finance law that wouldn't run afoul of RC's position. Barring a major upheaval from Democrats like expanding and substantially reforming the SCOTUS, that position will hold for decades. We had a chance at overturning CU, restoring the Voting Rights Act, and striking down racial and partisan gerrymandering, but the GOP has put a stop to that for a long, long time. If you agree with the Constitutional ruling in CU, then you're just going to have to be fine with money greatly corrupting our politics. There's not really a way around it, and it seems disingenuous to then hold the party that would love to overturn CU to task for playing by the rules that the GOP set. Unilateral disarmament would only mean that they would get crushed politically over and over again.

OTOH, it was Republicans who gave us Citizens United and now two additional Justices who will almost definitely uphold that ruling whereas Democratic appointees would have been more likely to overturn it. You can't fix "money in politics" with the Roberts Court's views on what Free Speech means for corporate and political spending. Just look at what they did a little after CU to the Montana law that was put in place during the Silver Barrons era to curb the rampant corruption--overturned as a free speech violation without even holding oral arguments. In as much as "who created the playing field" instead of "who's playing by the rules we've been given," it is decidedly not a symmetrical problem. Now couple the Roberts Court's views that "unlimited corporate and dark money spending is good" with their very recent ruling crippling union fundraising, and you've got an even more heavily tilted playing field. A tangential issue is the Roberts Court's stance that "quid pro quo" political bribery has an essentially impossible to prove standard, which led to the recent acquittal of hilariously corrupt Dem Senator Menendez. And now, thanks to the "sunk cost" stolen seat, we're pretty much guaranteed decades of a conservative majority Roberts Court that encourages and enables unlimited political spending.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/year-old-baby-appears-in-immigration-court_us_5b4290e3e4b07b827cc1e76c?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004 1-Year-Old Baby Appears In Immigration Court, Cries Hysterically The judge said he was “embarrassed” to ask if the boy understood the proceedings. A 1-year-old boy in federal custody who appeared in immigration court without his parents in Phoenix briefly played with a ball, drank from a bottle, then “cried hysterically” as he was about to leave the courtroom Friday, according to The Associated Press. But he was eventually granted a voluntary departure order so the government can fly him to Honduras, where his father has already been sent. The little boy, identified in court only as Johan, was one of the children who appeared in the Arizona court Friday without parents. One boy held up five fingers when the judge asked him his age. Judge John Richardson said he was “embarrassed to ask” if Johan understood the proceedings, AP reported. “I don’t know who you would explain it to, unless you think that a 1-year-old could learn immigration law,” he told Johan’s attorney. Immigration advocates have complained about children going to court, calling it stressful and frightening. People in immigration proceedings, even children, are not guaranteed an attorney, although most unaccompanied minors do appear with representation. There are no physical accommodations for children, many of whom can’t even see over defense tables without booster seats.

what is the alternative though I mean yeah ultimately you need a good GM and good development to get to the playoffs and win, if the Sox are terrible at it what manner they choose to be terrible doesn't really matter much

here's more on how McConnell also blocked over 100 federal judiciary seats that's allowed Trump to fill them full of young often completely unqualified ideologues who will sit on the courts for the next 40+ years. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-judges-trump-senate-20161231-story.html Even if Democrats win the House, Senate and Presidency, McConnell's legacy of stacking the federal court system with conservatives will long outlive him.

The court could use more reforms than that to really tamp down on it's current lottery nature. "Wow, Scalia died during a Democratic presidency! there's a chance the court could shift for decades now!" is not how you build a legitimate and reasonable constitutional court system. There are numerous ideas out there, like giving every President two appointments per term, that would reduce the potential for such wild swings in the court's ideology that can last decades and even generations. I think between Bush v. Gore and then McConnell's stealing the seat, more people are waking up to the court being an unelected political branch rather than being some sort of high-minded idealistic and impartial legal branch. That it's getting stuffed full of Federalist Society extremists who will overturn any serious progressive legislation for the next couple of decades will make it all the more obvious.

They could simply never even hold hearings, let alone a vote. McConnell did it for a Supreme Court seat and numerous federal judicial seats after Republicans took control of the Senate in January 2015. When it looked like Clinton was going to win in October 2016, many in the GOP were already floating the idea of never confirming any of her nominees, either.