gehringer_2

LOL - I've agreed with Gorsuch before, but agreeing with Gorsuch is really just a matter of random chance since his judicial philosophy doesn't correspond to any known consistency but his own. If you want to take a serious shot at the Constitutional issue in the US, the root of the problem (which BTW has nothing to do with the current issues with Trump) is that we claim to have a democratic representative government but in practice it cannot be controlled by the majority vote any more. At their core, all the of tensions between Presidential and Congressional power stem from that reality, that an elected US Congress does not adequately represent the will of the American public, with the result that a popularly elected President too often faces a minority controlled legislature, and that gridlock paralyzes government, to the point that all manner of dislocations to the system result because the imperative to govern remains despite the institutional gridlock. The asymmetry of the states, which produce the Senate imbalance, compounded by ossified and distorted rules of procedure, plus the modern addition of data processing power that allows surgical Gerrymanders, have turned the Founder's "great experiment" in democracy into a deflated soufflé. But we are so steeped in our myths of Constitutional inerrancy that we don't even come close to talking about fixing any of it. We have a fundamentally broken system, but are clinging to it like a drunk to his last bottle.

IDK, Congress passes a law to implement policy, creating and funding some kind of agency within the Exec to operate it. That isn't ceded power, that's just the way it has to work unless you want Congress creating it's own parallel bureaucracies. It's not really in the agency structure that Congress has abdicated, it's in allowing the exec free use of the military under non-emergency conditions without grant of any authority and its acquiescence to the proliferation of executive orders for the last couple of decades. Those abdications are real enough. Those are the problem, but that's not what the conservatives are trying to address with Unitary Executive theory.

then what are Isgur and the Federalists complaining about that there is such a pressing need for a more imperial 'Unitary' executive unimpeded by anything beyond his own fiat? It's their complaint.

It isn't even so much that Congress has ceded its power, it's that Congress had been an active enabler. A Congress properly outraged at having been told bald-faced lies at confirmation hearings or at any of the Trump cabinet outrages of the day could have removed any one of these turkey's - including Trump himself of course. The tariff case never reaches the SCOTUS if the House doesn't suspend the 'emergency clock'. Trump hasn't had power ceded to him, he's been actively aided and abetted.

Conservatives used to accuse Liberals of being 'Ivy Tower'. but it seems it's now Conservative that pine for idealistic constructs that have no relation or possibility of implementation in the real world. Independent administrative agencies insulated from executive branch politics are a perfectly practical solution to technological regulation. The Federal Society's complaint that they don't conform to their idealizations of government structure is windmill tilting of the highest order. And she's dead wrong about campaign finance reform.

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out that if you accept this logical construct of Trump's on tariffs (basically that the power of creation/destruction implies the power of complete regulation) I don't see how you can avoid the logical connection to how that would apply to CU. Granted that the law defies logic often enough.

what's interesting here is that logically, he is making the exact argument that would also defeat Citizen's United. Congress has the power to change corporate law and basically eliminate current corporate structure as a legal entity in the US and every US corporation as currently constituted with it, but the court ruled Congress does not have the power to regulate a subset of that entity's existence - i.e. political contributions. Exact same argument. Verrrrry interesteenk!

Good. Let him burn as many bridges as he can. It won't be the last decision this court has to make that affects him, but he's too stupid to think strategically - which is something to be thankful for.

Kavanugh is still a putz, but note that he lost Barrettt. There is a certain amount of hope for her.

spot on

Boeing never should have moved Engineering management away from the factory in the 1st place.

I don't think the proposal I just saw on ESPN to reward teams for winning after the ASB can work. It would just turn the season into something like one of those velo races where the cyclists try to creep around the track through the beginning of the race then suddenly take off sprinting to the end. A team would lose as many as it could out of the gate, then try hard in the 2nd half. I guess it solves the problem at the end of the season, but only by ruining the 1st half.

if you can cut down the number of teams that see any value in tanking, to me that is enough. I don't care if one or maybe two teams tank, but when 30% of your schedule is, then it's a problem.

everything has limits. There is no intrinsic law of the Universe that just because a particular set of words got put into the US Constitution they are necessarily the best rule for all societies for all time. TBH, I think the rise of the mass media in the 20th century and now the rise of mass communication of any media in 21st has created a fundamental paradigm shift between the danger of suppressing speech and the danger of truth becoming impossibly hard to tease out of the avalanche of falsehood. I'm not sure what the all the answers should be, but the idea that 18th century implementations can be the only just ones for all people for all times is an impossibly naive view of history. Core values may remain but details are local. The core value here is not speech but truth. If your rules of speech do not support truth, you need to think about your rules again.

None of the rights in the "Bill of" are absolute here either even though we like to talk to ourselves like they are, and liberal democracy (small 'l' small 'd') in Europe has manage to evolve pretty well without the more explicit kinds of statements we put in the Constitution. And to this particular point, Europe has more reason to remain circumspect of lofty pronouncements because they experienced political speech in Hitler that succeeded in producing 6 million+ murders and a war that destroyed most of their continent. If that had been our experience, it might have changed our views about the rhetoric we allow in the political sphere too.

Other than the normal farsightedness my vision has been near perfect all my like - and then a couple of years ago the 'floaters' started. It's a little similar as your brain learns to ignore them too, but I've found I've had to start looking twice - especially when driving, because if there happens to actually be something there behind by the floater, you may not see it at all on a quick glance and are not going to know it. (You already have a small blind spot in each eye where your optic nerve originates, but with two eyes they are not in the same spot in your binocular vision. A floater is usually kind of spindly, but still, add another spot in one eye that moves around, and if it a piece of it happens to line up with the optic blind spot in the other eye, that's going to be a little gap in your total vision and you will not be able to sense it. Or the opposite happens: you think you see something but it turns out you only caught a glimpse of the floater moving a bit. In fact I'm thinking these things are where a lot of 'ghost' sightings used to originate. They move a little bit in your eyeball and it is very much like seeing a ghost because your brain doesn't understand the sudden shift in illumination on small bit your retina and tries to interpret it as something real.

exactly. Sister Wives, Wive's Sister. Sounds close enough to me.

Ever heard the one about you get 2 economists in a room and you get 3 opinions? Here is Fed Governor Micheal Barr on 2/17: Speech by Governor Barr on artificial intelligence and the labor market - Federal Reserve Board

and speaking of riots. The '68 convention mess probably cost the Dems that election more than any other single event beside the War itself.

🎉🎆

thank-you for the effort!

It probably had some effect, everything has some effect and it was a close election and maybe it was enough - but I think it's also easy to overestimate it because there is always such a strong bias to want to blame more stuff on bad people like Nixon. So some of the things I think you have to add to the mix: -Revisionist history in the US about VN is strong. By 1980 everybody was always against the war, but that just isn't true. In 1968 most Americans still wanted a 'win' not just a peace. The WWII mindset that the US was invincible was still very dominant. The idea of walking away without victory was still hard to swallow, even after Korea (maybe especially because of Korea). The anger at Johnson was as least as much over him being unable to win the war as for having gotten into it. -Everyone knew Humphrey was a stronger 'peace' candidate than Nixon and that a deal was going to be more likely under Humphrey, so I'm not so sure how much difference the existence of any preliminary announcement was going to make. Humphrey had already said publicly that he was willing to go further to get a deal Johnson had been. I think that actually hurt him with the hawk part of the population - he was an appeaser! -S.V. didn't want a deal on N.V. terms so it was not going to be an easy needle to thread in any case. I was still pretty young but I liked HHH. The problem is a lot of people saw him as a caricature - it was a big problem for him.

maybe shouda just joined the LDS?

that's even better.

do a terrible job for 10 yrs, waste money on possibly fraudulent activities, featherbed your buddies, but then get fired for who you sleep with? As American as apple pie and.....baseball.