It's impossible to know the outcome but I would predict that the national security component would give the law a fighting chance of passing even strict scrutiny. Maybe not unanimously but who knows?
There's also a bigger picture where SCOTUS has historically been much more hesitant about directly taking on Congress, particularly where there isn't some sort of question about construction or intent.
That's not a direction I would have gone in either.
As I understand the act of Congress the law in question is better understood as a matter of forced divestiture of a business, not a restriction on speech. An interpretation of the 1A that prohibits Congress from passing a law of that nature would be unprecedented indeed.
Europe has no 1A. They already prosecute people for saying mean things on Facebook, making fun of foreign dictators, or even just talking about difficult social and political problems in ways the authorities find upsetting.
I am not one of our con law scholars but I'm surprised anyone saw a possibility of this going any other way. I'm not even sure I understand the 1A case against the law to the extent we're talking about the big precedents. And I'm one of those dreaded near-absolutists on free speech.
You know I'm hoping that if there's a silver lining from Trump's re-election it's that any attempt to derail discussion of a serious topic involving the word 'phobia' results in a bemused look right before whoever tries it is laughed out of the room. And while I'm sure that's wishful thinking I'll go ahead and wish for it anyway.
The counter argument for tech might be that the industry is of sufficient strategic importance (and worth more than the sum of it's salaries and profits) that it's worth making sacrifices to keep the major clusters in North America. Of course if that's what we're going with I'd expect some quid pro quo concessions to the public from tech, like IDK, prohibiting Elon from playing footsies with the Chinese. But ymmv.
Yea the fact that H1B is not a best and brightest, not even remotely, is the sort of thing the Musk/Vivek faction need to pray that the 'they took our jerbs' faction doesn't get wise to.
It's a lot more defensible on the merits than low skill labor (er uh... 'asylum' seekers) and I could at least believe that the tax contributions of H1Bs in STEM really are a net contribution in the sense that they put more in than they'll take out, including if they're being paid under market, and eventually become citizens eligible for entitlements. But it only works if American STEM types aren't seriously threatened. The anecdotes I hear of entire departments replacing citizens with H1Bs make me... skeptical. But I am also hardly an expert.
I'm not sure any tech entrepreneur is able to make the case for H1B expansion, or maybe even the case for the way the program exists today, in a way that's going to be convincing in MAGAland.
I don't think Bernie has ever been super keen on the mass immigration stuff, even if he felt like he had to pretend to be lately. It isn't hard to see how it becomes antithetical to the kind of solidarity and state social support that make up the core of his politics.
I am also hoping for a reset. Get some fresh blood ready to make a splash and set themselves apart a little. I don't think MAGA is unbeatable by any stretch. But we have to do something.
The canary in the coal mine for me is my wife. I can't imagine her ever voting Republican and certainly not Trump but since the election she has started making noises about feeling homeless politically in a way that's downright shocking to me. This is the total opposite of the outrage that I think a lot of women, her included, felt in 2016. She's also always been the partisan whereas I'm the one that lands left despite being conflicted about a few issues that don't align well but that I care about.
If we're starting to lose even people like her over some of this cultural stuff it's a problem that needs to be dealt with head on.
I don't think it's a fair representation of the larger left of center population at all. If I did I'd have a tougher time staying part of it than I do. IMO it's really just a small slice that's (unfortunately) uniquely loud and visible for a host of reasons.
The Democratic Party I think is a closer call. My suspicion has long been that if you could get the balance of D elected officials truly off the record they'd either reject the craziest stuff outright or say their actual position is something much more reasonable and nuanced, and point to a lot of legislation and governing decisions that illustrate that is true. But if when push comes to shove they're going to let themselves be yanked around in public by staffers or NGO type groups that do in fact endorse those views well... it becomes harder to say who is really in charge.
I think the result of that is the dynamic we have. Democratic politicians are reticent about defining themselves so the right does it for them, at least for a lot of average voters.
I will say of those I subscribe to and follow MY's stack is by far the best bang for your buck. Five posts a week, including interesting non-strictly political topics and a fairly interesting and civil comments section. If you ever crack and decide to do a paid subscription I'd strongly recommend his.
I might be echoing Chris' point but it is far from clear to me that what the GOP is doing is sustainable over even the very near term, provided the broader left can get better about not doing them any favors.
On the other post I said I think absent an external crisis of some kind the GOP is going to have a really hard time threading the needle between tech and similar big business and it's working class voters that turned the 2024 election for them. They are not natural allies and at some point they're going to have to decide who to alienate.
The basic argument of the piece is that Obama had taken progressive groups into supplicants but that events since 2014 have turned that on its head.
Critical passage:
Rather than mainstream progressive advocacy groups working to amplify Joe Biden’s message and create good press for him, they threaten him and other Democrats with bad press unless they hew to progressive orthodoxy. This is done in collaboration with progressive staffers and like-minded journalists. When Susan Rice was trying to push the administration toward a more moderate course on the border, her subordinates leaked against her. When Biden belatedly issued executive orders on asylum (for which I praised him), the ACLU denounced him. The Center for American Progress, which used to be the beating heart of the veal pen, didn’t put anything out on this.
I think there's absolutely something to this. Remember that the quotes from Harris on the (in)famous they/them ad about sex changes for illegal immigrants in prison came from something Harris signed off on to participate in an ACLU event. A progressive NPO literally wrote Trump's most effective attack ad. It had everything. The right response to that from the party is to never play ball with the ACLU again unless they fall in line. The same should apply to any organization that tries to force unpopular litmus tests, especially when they're so toxic to the party brand they could have been written by Karl Rove.
Assuming no external crisis my money is that the first 18 months of the administration are going to be dominated by wealthy grey tribe types coming to grips with all the many things the 'dumb' party doesn't like about them.
My take on this subject is it's asymmetry of the bases. Currently the Democatic coalition is bifurcated between upwardly mobile college educated (mostly) white people and working class racial minorities, the latter of which the GOP is getting better at picking off in little chunks. The GOP aims at the median voter and from the median I think GOP insanity comes off as maybe less insane in aggregate, especially if you live in some unfasionable suburb in middle America and you know a lot of people with silly vaguely right wing views but that don't actually threaten you. Basically we're doing the splits while theyre grappling around on all fours.
Which isn't to say the GOP isn't also hurt by this. Trump as thrown multiple elections for the Republicans at this point. Think the Georgia special elections for Senate or the fiasco in PA with Dr. Oz. They make plenty of unforced errors.
No, but nor do I not believe them. I don't know what happened, and doubt anyone other than Hegseth and his accusers do. I am confident that you don't know either and neither does any Senator, regardless of what they profess to believe.
In the case of the Senators they believe whatever they feel is in their interest to believe and unless whatever is presented stands a chance of altering those interests then it's a waste of time.
What I do know is what I said above, which is that it is going to take way more than this to derail his confirmation.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “SCOTUS Upholds TikTok Ban: Read It For Yourself”
It's impossible to know the outcome but I would predict that the national security component would give the law a fighting chance of passing even strict scrutiny. Maybe not unanimously but who knows?
There's also a bigger picture where SCOTUS has historically been much more hesitant about directly taking on Congress, particularly where there isn't some sort of question about construction or intent.
"
My answer was better in that it doubles as criteria for selecting fried chicken.
IIRC there is also some scholarly debate as to whether in practice the scrutiny applied wasn't merely a means of guaranteeing the desired outcome.
But I was never great when it came to the metaphysics around constitutional questions.
"
Spicier than rational basis but more mild than strict scrutiny.
"
That's not a direction I would have gone in either.
As I understand the act of Congress the law in question is better understood as a matter of forced divestiture of a business, not a restriction on speech. An interpretation of the 1A that prohibits Congress from passing a law of that nature would be unprecedented indeed.
"
Agreed.
"
Europe has no 1A. They already prosecute people for saying mean things on Facebook, making fun of foreign dictators, or even just talking about difficult social and political problems in ways the authorities find upsetting.
"
I am not one of our con law scholars but I'm surprised anyone saw a possibility of this going any other way. I'm not even sure I understand the 1A case against the law to the extent we're talking about the big precedents. And I'm one of those dreaded near-absolutists on free speech.
On “The Shakedown”
You know I'm hoping that if there's a silver lining from Trump's re-election it's that any attempt to derail discussion of a serious topic involving the word 'phobia' results in a bemused look right before whoever tries it is laughed out of the room. And while I'm sure that's wishful thinking I'll go ahead and wish for it anyway.
"
No serious disagreement from me.
The counter argument for tech might be that the industry is of sufficient strategic importance (and worth more than the sum of it's salaries and profits) that it's worth making sacrifices to keep the major clusters in North America. Of course if that's what we're going with I'd expect some quid pro quo concessions to the public from tech, like IDK, prohibiting Elon from playing footsies with the Chinese. But ymmv.
"
Yea the fact that H1B is not a best and brightest, not even remotely, is the sort of thing the Musk/Vivek faction need to pray that the 'they took our jerbs' faction doesn't get wise to.
It's a lot more defensible on the merits than low skill labor (er uh... 'asylum' seekers) and I could at least believe that the tax contributions of H1Bs in STEM really are a net contribution in the sense that they put more in than they'll take out, including if they're being paid under market, and eventually become citizens eligible for entitlements. But it only works if American STEM types aren't seriously threatened. The anecdotes I hear of entire departments replacing citizens with H1Bs make me... skeptical. But I am also hardly an expert.
"
I'm not sure any tech entrepreneur is able to make the case for H1B expansion, or maybe even the case for the way the program exists today, in a way that's going to be convincing in MAGAland.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025”
LOL I enjoy that one too but not in a way that signifies respect towards a man who has passed on.
"
Saw that. Going to try to watch Lost Highway this weekend, which was always my favorite of his films.
On “The Shakedown”
I don't think Bernie has ever been super keen on the mass immigration stuff, even if he felt like he had to pretend to be lately. It isn't hard to see how it becomes antithetical to the kind of solidarity and state social support that make up the core of his politics.
On “Trump’s Ace in the Hole”
I am also hoping for a reset. Get some fresh blood ready to make a splash and set themselves apart a little. I don't think MAGA is unbeatable by any stretch. But we have to do something.
The canary in the coal mine for me is my wife. I can't imagine her ever voting Republican and certainly not Trump but since the election she has started making noises about feeling homeless politically in a way that's downright shocking to me. This is the total opposite of the outrage that I think a lot of women, her included, felt in 2016. She's also always been the partisan whereas I'm the one that lands left despite being conflicted about a few issues that don't align well but that I care about.
If we're starting to lose even people like her over some of this cultural stuff it's a problem that needs to be dealt with head on.
"
I don't think it's a fair representation of the larger left of center population at all. If I did I'd have a tougher time staying part of it than I do. IMO it's really just a small slice that's (unfortunately) uniquely loud and visible for a host of reasons.
The Democratic Party I think is a closer call. My suspicion has long been that if you could get the balance of D elected officials truly off the record they'd either reject the craziest stuff outright or say their actual position is something much more reasonable and nuanced, and point to a lot of legislation and governing decisions that illustrate that is true. But if when push comes to shove they're going to let themselves be yanked around in public by staffers or NGO type groups that do in fact endorse those views well... it becomes harder to say who is really in charge.
I think the result of that is the dynamic we have. Democratic politicians are reticent about defining themselves so the right does it for them, at least for a lot of average voters.
"
Ha fair enough!
I will say of those I subscribe to and follow MY's stack is by far the best bang for your buck. Five posts a week, including interesting non-strictly political topics and a fairly interesting and civil comments section. If you ever crack and decide to do a paid subscription I'd strongly recommend his.
"
I might be echoing Chris' point but it is far from clear to me that what the GOP is doing is sustainable over even the very near term, provided the broader left can get better about not doing them any favors.
On the other post I said I think absent an external crisis of some kind the GOP is going to have a really hard time threading the needle between tech and similar big business and it's working class voters that turned the 2024 election for them. They are not natural allies and at some point they're going to have to decide who to alienate.
"
Not sure if you subscribe but MY had what I thought was a pretty insightful article on what's going on and what I think Jaybird is likely perceiving.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/from-the-veal-pen-to-the-groups
The basic argument of the piece is that Obama had taken progressive groups into supplicants but that events since 2014 have turned that on its head.
Critical passage:
Rather than mainstream progressive advocacy groups working to amplify Joe Biden’s message and create good press for him, they threaten him and other Democrats with bad press unless they hew to progressive orthodoxy. This is done in collaboration with progressive staffers and like-minded journalists. When Susan Rice was trying to push the administration toward a more moderate course on the border, her subordinates leaked against her. When Biden belatedly issued executive orders on asylum (for which I praised him), the ACLU denounced him. The Center for American Progress, which used to be the beating heart of the veal pen, didn’t put anything out on this.
I think there's absolutely something to this. Remember that the quotes from Harris on the (in)famous they/them ad about sex changes for illegal immigrants in prison came from something Harris signed off on to participate in an ACLU event. A progressive NPO literally wrote Trump's most effective attack ad. It had everything. The right response to that from the party is to never play ball with the ACLU again unless they fall in line. The same should apply to any organization that tries to force unpopular litmus tests, especially when they're so toxic to the party brand they could have been written by Karl Rove.
On “The Shakedown”
Assuming no external crisis my money is that the first 18 months of the administration are going to be dominated by wealthy grey tribe types coming to grips with all the many things the 'dumb' party doesn't like about them.
On “Trump’s Ace in the Hole”
My take on this subject is it's asymmetry of the bases. Currently the Democatic coalition is bifurcated between upwardly mobile college educated (mostly) white people and working class racial minorities, the latter of which the GOP is getting better at picking off in little chunks. The GOP aims at the median voter and from the median I think GOP insanity comes off as maybe less insane in aggregate, especially if you live in some unfasionable suburb in middle America and you know a lot of people with silly vaguely right wing views but that don't actually threaten you. Basically we're doing the splits while theyre grappling around on all fours.
Which isn't to say the GOP isn't also hurt by this. Trump as thrown multiple elections for the Republicans at this point. Think the Georgia special elections for Senate or the fiasco in PA with Dr. Oz. They make plenty of unforced errors.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025”
When keeping it kinky goes wrong.
On “No Fighting In the War Room: Pete Hegseth Confirmation Hearing Livestream Edition”
I agree.
"
Heh touché.
"
No, but nor do I not believe them. I don't know what happened, and doubt anyone other than Hegseth and his accusers do. I am confident that you don't know either and neither does any Senator, regardless of what they profess to believe.
In the case of the Senators they believe whatever they feel is in their interest to believe and unless whatever is presented stands a chance of altering those interests then it's a waste of time.
What I do know is what I said above, which is that it is going to take way more than this to derail his confirmation.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.