The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

And yet, it's absolutely possible in my neck of the woods -- which was left until right took over, and even then we're still treated on equal terms. No special-treatment, just equal treatment.

It's remarkable that you have to call it special when you're already making use of the exact same right or whatever. To you it's not special, and to the one who wants to make use of it, it's also not special, just leveled to equal stature.

Quotas, Affirmative action, set-asides, relaxed standards, and all the rest are "equal treatment" in your eyes?

I'd change eye doctors if I were you.

[Falcon Horus]

Quotas, Affirmative action, set-asides, relaxed standards, and all the rest are "equal treatment" in your eyes?

I don't know you mean with affirmative action.

By quotas, I suspect you mean a diverse workforce? Which all depends on what the job is to begin with... but okay... Clearly, you've never heard of the term "qualifications".

And oh yeah, discrimination towards foreign sounding names is very real -- there's no denying that, and that's why we have our Equal Opportunity agencies for, where complaints can be filed and are processed.

And not entirely sure what you mean with relaxed standards?

I'd change eye doctors if I were you.

I don't have an eye doctor to begin -- waiting lists are too long to bother with those.

[garhkal]

Well, the sanctuary cities / federal funding issue will land before the SCOTUS. Which might be more reasonable about it. =)

My whole issue with it (besides the shopping around to find the liberal judge who will rule in their favor) is how can a judge REPRESENTING a city that will be impacted by it, EVER BE seen as being impartial in how he would rule/?

[Gatefan1976]

My whole issue with it (besides the shopping around to find the liberal judge who will rule in their favor) is how can a judge REPRESENTING a city that will be impacted by it, EVER BE seen as being impartial in how he would rule/?

Is that like denying a SCOTUS judge so you can maybe get one you like?

[Annoyed]

It worked, didn't it?

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, so why are you complaining if someone else does it?

[Coco Pops]

And not entirely sure what you mean with relaxed standards?

I think he means the lowering of standards for things like entry into the military and such. We are seeing that here with police and some of our armed forces where they have relaxed some of the fitness standards to get more cops on the beat and soldiers in the field.

I don't think that is right.

[jelgate]

Its all he knows.

[Annoyed]

I wasn't bellyaching about it. I was telling garhkal not to worry about it because the SCOTUS will overturn the 9th circuit anyway.

[Gatefan1976]

You do understand that one of the breaches of the constitution was upheld by Scalia, right?
Do you think Gorsuch will go against his idols position?

[Annoyed]

How could Scalia have ruled on either the sanctuary cities case or the ones blocking travel restrictions? Unless he's hearing cases from the grave, of course.

And the authority of the feds to use the threat of withholding federal funds to coerce proper behavior is not new. Biggest example I can think of is when the feds "convinced" the states that they should all adopt a 55 MPH speed limit back in the 1970's.

This kind of thing is exactly why I've been saying that the SCOTUS aspects of Trump's presidency are the most important of all of them. He is very likely to get at least one more pick before the Senate might flip in 2018.
The left has been legislating from the bench for long time now, and the 9th circuit has been one of the worst offenders.

Those days are over.

[Gatefan1976]

How could Scalia have ruled on either the sanctuary cities case or the ones blocking travel restrictions? Unless he's hearing cases from the grave, of course.

Nonono. One of the rulings being held up as a breach is a previous ruling from Scalia.

And the authority of the feds to use the threat of withholding federal funds to coerce proper behavior is not new. Biggest example I can think of is when the feds "convinced" the states that they should all adopt a 55 MPH speed limit back in the 1970's.

Sure, but it has to be done in advance. You can't change the rules while the deal is in place. You certainly -can- offer a new deal with strings, that's fine, but that is not what is being proposed. (which is one of Roberts rulings IIRC)

[Annoyed]

Sure, but it has to be done in advance. You can't change the rules while the deal is in place. You certainly -can- offer a new deal with strings, that's fine, but that is not what is being proposed. (which is one of Roberts rulings IIRC)

What do you think happened in the 1970's? The Constitution grants regulatory authority of travel within a state to the state. Each state already had its own speed limits. And there was already a flow of federal highway funds to the states.
But the feds came along and wanted 55, so they threatened to withhold that existing funding if the states didn't comply with the new demand for a 55 MPH limit.

That's the exact same thing that is happening now. The only difference is that the opponents of the sanctuary cities withholding took it to a known far left/looney court, the 9th Circuit. That particular court has been a piece of work for a long time, even to the point of overturning decisions made by the voters in the ballot box not once, but twice.

With the SCOTUS shifting to the right, that particular court is going to be rendered impotent because its excesses will be overturned.

As I said, the importance of the SCOTUS cannot be overstated. The voters handed the White House and the Senate to the Republicans. So that court is going to go to the right, very likely even more than it is already with Gorsuch's addition.

As a former sorry excuse for a president once said "Elections have consequences".

[Gatefan1976]

What do you think happened in the 1970's? The Constitution grants regulatory authority of travel within a state to the state. Each state already had its own speed limits. And there was already a flow of federal highway funds to the states.
But the feds came along and wanted 55, so they threatened to withhold that existing funding if the states didn't comply with the new demand for a 55 MPH limit.

No, not existing funding, new funding from the emergency highway energy conservation act.

That's the exact same thing that is happening now.

No, it is not.

The only difference is that the opponents of the sanctuary cities withholding took it to a known far left/looney court, the 9th Circuit. That particular court has been a piece of work for a long time, even to the point of overturning decisions made by the voters in the ballot box not once, but twice.

But this one by the 5th circuit was OK?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ration/415077/

With the SCOTUS shifting to the right, that particular court is going to be rendered impotent because its excesses will be overturned.

And I can hear you giggling from here.

As I said, the importance of the SCOTUS cannot be overstated. The voters handed the White House and the Senate to the Republicans. So that court is going to go to the right, very likely even more than it is already with Gorsuch's addition.

So important in fact that the right was willing to do -anything- to get it, no matter what.
Oh, and the voters still did not hand republicans the WH, that was the EC. He is president, according to the rules, but not according to the people.

As a former sorry excuse for a president once said "Elections have consequences".

Yes they do, lots of things have consequences.

[garhkal]

Is that like denying a SCOTUS judge so you can maybe get one you like?

No. Denying a judge a vote is no way the same. Especially since shopping around for a specific judge can mean you are WANTING to find one that will rule your way, for what ever reason (often something that SHOULD imo recuse him cause of what ever conflicts of interest there are). Where as there is no conflict of interest in denying a judge a vote.
I mean, would YOU like it if, say i was gonna sue you, that i was able to "Shop around" to find that one judge that has it OUT for you? That's almost what THIS seems like.

I wasn't bellyaching about it. I was telling garhkal not to worry about it because the SCOTUS will overturn the 9th circuit anyway.

A) can we be certain of that?
And B) How long must we wait?

And the authority of the feds to use the threat of withholding federal funds to coerce proper behavior is not new. Biggest example I can think of is when the feds "convinced" the states that they should all adopt a 55 MPH speed limit back in the 1970's.

PLus Obama did it over the bathroom bill issue. YET NO ONE raised hell that it was illegal for him to do so.