All that's really lacking is balls. The Democrats are at their strongest when they're standing on things like not balancing the federal budget on the backs of Medicaid recipients or preaching a kind of live and let live vision of fairness, but a laid back fairness that takes into account the complexities of life, including individual agency.
It isn't that hard to look at the mostly white, highly educated, dare I say 'privileged' people to whom this stuff is important and say this isn't a workable vision for America. If you need to turn this stuff on someone turn it on yourselves (which truthfully is more often than not what they do). We need ideas that work and a big tent to implement them so either get on board or at least shut up and save it for your ivy alum group texts.
I used to have one of those and it would feel so good as I went to sleep but I 'd inevitably wake up in the middle of the night over heating and soaked in sweat.
For the record this is one that I think really is worth being pissed off about. They've put a drunken Fox News personality with no experience running anything but a small charity (which he seems to have done poorly) in charge of the biggest, arguably most important government agency. That is crazy, dangerous, and begging for disaster.
I think she lost because inflation was bad and the border is out of control. I don't think wokeness was an issue in the sense that she failed to inhabit some sort of Goldilocks zone. What it may have done, and tends to do, is make people look out of touch with the concerns and challenges of normal, every day people.
Gotta learn to pick our battles, Saul. The kind of discrimination I'm assuming you're concerned about would still violate the equal protection clause and possibly also the civil rights act.
We also have to deal with the reality that as necessary as some of these things were 60 years ago the country has changed. The rules and regs have also metastasized from simple non-discrimination requirements into a morass of rent seeking, shadow quotas, and new forms discrimination, all to the detriment of state competence, capacity, and trust. If they really do want to start discriminating against racial minorities there are plenty of tools to fight back. Otherwise it's time to let it go.
1. EO on Birthright citizenship- bad policy for reasons I went onto on other post, probably unconstitutional.
2. Border Emergency- unclear what this actually does, if anything. Seems likely to be empty posturing.
3. Getting rid of work remote bad, getting rid of DEI good, don't know enough about the protections but my anecdotal experience from my brief stint as a federal employee was that there was little discipline or accountability anywhere.
4. Paris- bad, but probably doesn't mean much given the chances of anyone meeting what they agreed to are already low. Climate will be mitigated (or not) by tech not treaties.
5. Weaponization of the government- unclear what this actually means.
6. TikTok- very bad if in fact unilaterally disregarding a law passed by Congress.
7. 1/6 Pardons- also very bad for reasons that seem too obvious to require further explanation.
I suppose we will see what the courts do with it. To the extent we're just spitballing I think I'd find it less of a problem if it was specific to 'asylum' seekers. I believe both domestic and international law says that they are supposed to go home eventually. I don't think that would raise the same bigger picture questions, constitutional or otherwise or necessarily have the same potential to lay the seeds for long term problems. It also might even be distinguishable from the controlling federal case law which IIRC involved the child of legally domiciled Chinese residents. Channeling CJ Roberts it seems to me that there are some important facts that could result in a different outcome without upending the core holdings. It also takes the influx if asylum claims at face value, even if we all know most of them are without merit.
Anyway we probably aren't all that far apart. I agree that this situation is crying out for action by Congress and that's where the nuts and bolts need to be worked out.
Saul, please do not make me defend this guy. The order says the below, which states it applies only to those born 30 days after the order (and therefore presumably not to those born before) and excludes children born to legal residents. I don't agree with the policy either but let's deal with it as it is. It's disconcerting enough that we're already hunting for 'ok' symbols again and we aren't even 24 hours into the administration.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.
(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if we're creating the conditions parallel to those that I would think we all agree the clause of the 14th Amendment in question was written to prevent, aren't we just taking a roundabout path to the place we are today? Or maybe even conceding that it can't be constitutional in the first instance?
On pure policy grounds maybe there's a case for trying something of this nature once you've established a system of interdiction that's functioning. Prove you can stop the influx and actually repatriat the people in the country illegally. I still don't think I'd agree with it but I would understand how it fit in to a larger preventative set of policies. Under the status quo it seems likely to me to only make things worse.
It may be popular but if it stands (which is an open question) I think it will exacerbate the problems with illegal immigration. One thing birthright citizenship has spared us is the jus sanguinis situation in Europe, where they have large numbers of people born in the country to foreign guest workers and similar people who are all or more or less acculturated but aren't citizens of the country they reside in and have no relationship to their ostensible country of origin. It's the 'Dreamers' issue but on steroids. Even if we decide we don't care about the ethical issues odds are high no other country would accept deportees with that sort of status. Meanwhile we're creating a new class of stateless people posing novel legal questions, and in a worst case scenario failing to assimilate or nursing grudges against the country that wouldn't have them. And to what end? There are better ways to discourage illegal immigrants.
I'm all for putting a stop to illegal crossings and getting serious about visa overstays but this seems more like half baked Fox News punditry than a solution.
Maybe other lawyers on here will disagree with me but IMO the ABA is not a high credibility organization. Anecdotal but I talk to lawyers all day about all kinds of stuff and the ABA never comes up. Its main role of relevance is in the accreditation of law schools. In terms of its public advocacy I don't think it's any different than any other progressive NGO. I suppose ymmv but that entire ecosystem burned whatever credibility it had on any topic years ago, and I know I'm not the only liberal (enough anyway) person who thinks that.
It has been as messy around here as I can remember in years, especially with the temps staying so low. Over Thursday night my driveway developed a massive crack, which I assume is related to the cold temperature, multiple cycles of freeze and re-freezing or both. All I can say is good luck and try not to break an axle driving around the district.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
All that's really lacking is balls. The Democrats are at their strongest when they're standing on things like not balancing the federal budget on the backs of Medicaid recipients or preaching a kind of live and let live vision of fairness, but a laid back fairness that takes into account the complexities of life, including individual agency.
It isn't that hard to look at the mostly white, highly educated, dare I say 'privileged' people to whom this stuff is important and say this isn't a workable vision for America. If you need to turn this stuff on someone turn it on yourselves (which truthfully is more often than not what they do). We need ideas that work and a big tent to implement them so either get on board or at least shut up and save it for your ivy alum group texts.
"
Anyone who hasn't needs to look at the farcical changes at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
"
It's a message from the administration that we are all going to need some cigs for the ride we are about to go on.
"
This thread is making me miss smoking.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Was Last Year This Cold?”
That sounds expensive but I'm sure if I tell my wife about it I will immediately see the charge appear on the family credit card.
"
I used to have one of those and it would feel so good as I went to sleep but I 'd inevitably wake up in the middle of the night over heating and soaked in sweat.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
For the record this is one that I think really is worth being pissed off about. They've put a drunken Fox News personality with no experience running anything but a small charity (which he seems to have done poorly) in charge of the biggest, arguably most important government agency. That is crazy, dangerous, and begging for disaster.
"
Melania reads them to him.
On “Trump Term Two, Day One, Executive Orders”
This.
"
I think she lost because inflation was bad and the border is out of control. I don't think wokeness was an issue in the sense that she failed to inhabit some sort of Goldilocks zone. What it may have done, and tends to do, is make people look out of touch with the concerns and challenges of normal, every day people.
"
Gotta learn to pick our battles, Saul. The kind of discrimination I'm assuming you're concerned about would still violate the equal protection clause and possibly also the civil rights act.
We also have to deal with the reality that as necessary as some of these things were 60 years ago the country has changed. The rules and regs have also metastasized from simple non-discrimination requirements into a morass of rent seeking, shadow quotas, and new forms discrimination, all to the detriment of state competence, capacity, and trust. If they really do want to start discriminating against racial minorities there are plenty of tools to fight back. Otherwise it's time to let it go.
"
My reactions are as follows:
1. EO on Birthright citizenship- bad policy for reasons I went onto on other post, probably unconstitutional.
2. Border Emergency- unclear what this actually does, if anything. Seems likely to be empty posturing.
3. Getting rid of work remote bad, getting rid of DEI good, don't know enough about the protections but my anecdotal experience from my brief stint as a federal employee was that there was little discipline or accountability anywhere.
4. Paris- bad, but probably doesn't mean much given the chances of anyone meeting what they agreed to are already low. Climate will be mitigated (or not) by tech not treaties.
5. Weaponization of the government- unclear what this actually means.
6. TikTok- very bad if in fact unilaterally disregarding a law passed by Congress.
7. 1/6 Pardons- also very bad for reasons that seem too obvious to require further explanation.
"
Good riddance.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
It may be the single hardest to understand unforced error by the Biden admin.
"
I suppose we will see what the courts do with it. To the extent we're just spitballing I think I'd find it less of a problem if it was specific to 'asylum' seekers. I believe both domestic and international law says that they are supposed to go home eventually. I don't think that would raise the same bigger picture questions, constitutional or otherwise or necessarily have the same potential to lay the seeds for long term problems. It also might even be distinguishable from the controlling federal case law which IIRC involved the child of legally domiciled Chinese residents. Channeling CJ Roberts it seems to me that there are some important facts that could result in a different outcome without upending the core holdings. It also takes the influx if asylum claims at face value, even if we all know most of them are without merit.
Anyway we probably aren't all that far apart. I agree that this situation is crying out for action by Congress and that's where the nuts and bolts need to be worked out.
"
Saul, please do not make me defend this guy. The order says the below, which states it applies only to those born 30 days after the order (and therefore presumably not to those born before) and excludes children born to legal residents. I don't agree with the policy either but let's deal with it as it is. It's disconcerting enough that we're already hunting for 'ok' symbols again and we aren't even 24 hours into the administration.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.
(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.
"
It says the order goes into effect in 30 days. We can debate retroactive application if and when it's attempted.
"
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if we're creating the conditions parallel to those that I would think we all agree the clause of the 14th Amendment in question was written to prevent, aren't we just taking a roundabout path to the place we are today? Or maybe even conceding that it can't be constitutional in the first instance?
On pure policy grounds maybe there's a case for trying something of this nature once you've established a system of interdiction that's functioning. Prove you can stop the influx and actually repatriat the people in the country illegally. I still don't think I'd agree with it but I would understand how it fit in to a larger preventative set of policies. Under the status quo it seems likely to me to only make things worse.
"
It may be popular but if it stands (which is an open question) I think it will exacerbate the problems with illegal immigration. One thing birthright citizenship has spared us is the jus sanguinis situation in Europe, where they have large numbers of people born in the country to foreign guest workers and similar people who are all or more or less acculturated but aren't citizens of the country they reside in and have no relationship to their ostensible country of origin. It's the 'Dreamers' issue but on steroids. Even if we decide we don't care about the ethical issues odds are high no other country would accept deportees with that sort of status. Meanwhile we're creating a new class of stateless people posing novel legal questions, and in a worst case scenario failing to assimilate or nursing grudges against the country that wouldn't have them. And to what end? There are better ways to discourage illegal immigrants.
I'm all for putting a stop to illegal crossings and getting serious about visa overstays but this seems more like half baked Fox News punditry than a solution.
On “The Shakedown”
Heh I mean, if I predicted that by July 4 Musk won't be in there either would anyone bet against me?
On “From TikTok To ERA, Biden Leaves Taxpayers A Mess”
Maybe other lawyers on here will disagree with me but IMO the ABA is not a high credibility organization. Anecdotal but I talk to lawyers all day about all kinds of stuff and the ABA never comes up. Its main role of relevance is in the accreditation of law schools. In terms of its public advocacy I don't think it's any different than any other progressive NGO. I suppose ymmv but that entire ecosystem burned whatever credibility it had on any topic years ago, and I know I'm not the only liberal (enough anyway) person who thinks that.
On “Weekend Plans Post: One Single Good Song in 2024”
Try this one:
https://youtu.be/MY8PRFQ-RiM?si=27eS8zb1v5WL9WBw
"
LOL! I can totally hear it!
"
It has been as messy around here as I can remember in years, especially with the temps staying so low. Over Thursday night my driveway developed a massive crack, which I assume is related to the cold temperature, multiple cycles of freeze and re-freezing or both. All I can say is good luck and try not to break an axle driving around the district.
"
In 2024 I enjoyed Unto Others and their mission to bring some goth rock in the 21st century. Video is cheesy as all hell but shouldn't it be?
https://youtu.be/-1ZMwgF5ric?si=qjqm1419u6pSsr2o
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.