I trust the Chief Justice not to let any weird stuff happen, regardless of who else gets added to the Court.
Judicial independence is not destroyed so easily as imagined, and politicians have a very poor record of successfully appointing puppets to the Court. Even the ones who appear to be puppets during confirmation often because principled jurists when given the highest life appointment possible.
I won't like a more conservative Court, but that doesn't mean it is the end of the world either.
Right, "Executive Order" translates exactly to Office Memo. As the head of the executive branch, there is no question that he can issue them. They have very little real value other than making an order public, but that itself is a certain sort of power. It bypasses the organizational chain of command to give a direct order that everybody will become aware of.
No, if the Executive Branch gets out of line, the Legal Branch can overturn whatever they did. They don't need any help from Congress.
If Congress wants to get involved, they can usually then join the Executive Branch and allow the action. But not always, only when the Legal Branch agrees that they can. Sometimes they still say no, usually they say yes.
If the Legal Branch steps out of line, only Congress can do anything about it; the Executive isn't involved at all.
If Congress is out of line the Legal Branch can stop them. However, there isn't really that much that the President can do to get involved and help, other than sending government lawyers to argue in support of Congress at the hearings.
A lot of Democrats are waiting for the bad things to actually happen before becoming outraged.
We'll see how many court orders get ignored and how that plays out, then we'll see how many people become outraged.:) Or we'll see the Courts work it out, and Democrats simply wait for elections.
The coming mid-terms have very few Republican Senate seats up, but lots of Democrats. Then the Dems have big chances again at the next Presidential election. There is basically nothing that Democrats can do to regain any branch of government until the next Presidential election.
Republican "outrage" was effective because they controlled the House of Representatives.
Lemmings don't actually jump off cliffs or into other dangers. It is just a myth, also known as false news from yesteryear.
Ostriches only put their heads in the sand to avoid sandstorm damage. It is highly effective. The idea that they put their heads in the sand in response to inappropriate danger is not exactly false news, but rather fiction borrowed from cartoons.
Because the President is surrounded by Yes Men and so nobody is asking what the negatives are. That leaves the details poorly formed, the planning incomplete.
That's fine but legal politics has different divisions than electoral politics. Conservative judges do not bend to the will of the Executive Branch just because of what political party they're in. A large number of conservative judges are highly principled and do not care what your politics are; they have an established view of the Law and they will follow it the same way in every case. This is also true of liberal judges, and other groupings.
Judicial independence is not as easy to influence as just saying words on little screens in people's houses. And if you do it, Judges will know you're just being an asshole, and they won't feel themselves coming over to your side in response. They will still issue the same rulings, though.
He identified the straw man and called it out, but didn't give you a full analysis.
However, it should be painfully obvious that
unconditional right to enter the US
is not at all the same thing as,
has a right to enter the US
. It is true that border agents have wide immediate discretion but it is also true that legal residents of the United States have a right to re-enter. That is not "unconditional" at all. There are all sorts of situations where they have violated some other law and no longer can enter. However, they also might not have even been accused of violating any laws, and do in fact have a legal right to enter.
That should be painfully obvious to everybody when they first see "unconditional" added into the conversation. It is a Red Flag for horse shit.
Obama didn't even sign the executive order, so there is no way he is responsible for selecting what list to use in it.
If there was some list during President Obama's term that had the same countries on it, that is not surprising at all. For context we'd need to know how many different lists of countries a President normally creates during his term, by whatever metric the list is being credited to the President. It is unlikely that the number of lists is going to be so low that the particular combination of countries would be some sort of valuable invention that others would know because those who went before them cited them together in a different context.
This is why liberals, who have a lot of individualist/libertarian views, do not try to advertise it; the people already squatting on the word are anti-libertarians!
We need a new word for the old thing, because the corporatists will never give up their misuse of the old word.
Threatening us with confinement in concentration camps is unlikely to persuade us that your ideas have rational validity, nor is it likely to improve the moderator response.
OK, so he did manage to uncover how stupid you are being here. You imply that you think the risk of death by terrorism is 1:1000. That's simply wrong. No wonder you come to incorrect conclusions, your input data is garbage.
Too bad for you weird *-ist shit is what popped out, but you were guaranteed some kind of garbage after all.
It isn't arbitrary, Federal vs State budgets and taxes are actually separate already before any of this analysis is done. It may have been arbitrary when established, but once entrenched it is simply the reality that you have to accept.
Then you jump through insane hoops to try to pretend that Democrats are just stupid dillweeds who don't create any economic activity, even in rich States where they are the majority. You got your whole world-view from AM radio and even though you're educated enough to form sentences and paragraphs, you spew insane bullshit like that without a second thought.
I doubt there is even any hope for you. You can't comprehend how stupid what you said is, and you never will. I mean, you didn't notice that most of the economic activity is from the cities, and the rich states are ones with big cities. In States like California and New York, the Democrats are clustered in the cities, as is the profit and taxes, and the state and federal aid that you worry about is disproportionately given to rural communities. No part of your zero-game fantasy is similar to reality, no part.
I didn't say it is hard to believe, I said if you define the word that way then it has no utility, no meaning.
Words are more effective when they describe less than 100% of the possible things. That way by combining words, you can say specific things. When a word describes everything, then using the word or not using the word have the same meaning.
You're blaming them, but you're the one who had to spend two weeks futzing with it and kept using it.
Take responsibility for your own actions, however awful windoze is, as a windoze user you have responsibility for every negative impact it inflicts on you. And if you're in IT, you have responsibility for all the harm you've inflicted on users with it.
Why is it worrying? Don't forget to include an idea in your idea! What are you worried about, and why does being worried about it affect the analysis you responded to?
Were you meaning to indicate merely that you agreed, but were unable to phrase it except as disagreement?
This is just click-flame-bait. By their definition all countries would be "corrupt." And it is logically absurd to claim that because some example of ethical violations exist in a country, that therefore the country itself "is" corrupt. It means everything is corrupt, even the word corrupt becomes so corrupted that it has no meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it is hard to remember the details, but firethirtyeight had it at 25% chance for Trump, and it was almost everybody else who had it at 1-3%.
When you call out one group of people by name, try not to get it exactly backwards, OK?
There was no expanded power, most of what he did that way was overturned.
I trust the Chief Justice not to let any weird stuff happen, regardless of who else gets added to the Court.
Judicial independence is not destroyed so easily as imagined, and politicians have a very poor record of successfully appointing puppets to the Court. Even the ones who appear to be puppets during confirmation often because principled jurists when given the highest life appointment possible.
I won't like a more conservative Court, but that doesn't mean it is the end of the world either.
Right, "Executive Order" translates exactly to Office Memo. As the head of the executive branch, there is no question that he can issue them. They have very little real value other than making an order public, but that itself is a certain sort of power. It bypasses the organizational chain of command to give a direct order that everybody will become aware of.
No, if the Executive Branch gets out of line, the Legal Branch can overturn whatever they did. They don't need any help from Congress.
If Congress wants to get involved, they can usually then join the Executive Branch and allow the action. But not always, only when the Legal Branch agrees that they can. Sometimes they still say no, usually they say yes.
If the Legal Branch steps out of line, only Congress can do anything about it; the Executive isn't involved at all.
If Congress is out of line the Legal Branch can stop them. However, there isn't really that much that the President can do to get involved and help, other than sending government lawyers to argue in support of Congress at the hearings.
A lot of Democrats are waiting for the bad things to actually happen before becoming outraged.
We'll see how many court orders get ignored and how that plays out, then we'll see how many people become outraged. :) Or we'll see the Courts work it out, and Democrats simply wait for elections.
The coming mid-terms have very few Republican Senate seats up, but lots of Democrats. Then the Dems have big chances again at the next Presidential election. There is basically nothing that Democrats can do to regain any branch of government until the next Presidential election.
Republican "outrage" was effective because they controlled the House of Representatives.
Lemmings don't actually jump off cliffs or into other dangers. It is just a myth, also known as false news from yesteryear.
Ostriches only put their heads in the sand to avoid sandstorm damage. It is highly effective. The idea that they put their heads in the sand in response to inappropriate danger is not exactly false news, but rather fiction borrowed from cartoons.
Because the President is surrounded by Yes Men and so nobody is asking what the negatives are. That leaves the details poorly formed, the planning incomplete.
That's fine but legal politics has different divisions than electoral politics. Conservative judges do not bend to the will of the Executive Branch just because of what political party they're in. A large number of conservative judges are highly principled and do not care what your politics are; they have an established view of the Law and they will follow it the same way in every case. This is also true of liberal judges, and other groupings.
Judicial independence is not as easy to influence as just saying words on little screens in people's houses. And if you do it, Judges will know you're just being an asshole, and they won't feel themselves coming over to your side in response. They will still issue the same rulings, though.
He identified the straw man and called it out, but didn't give you a full analysis.
However, it should be painfully obvious that
unconditional right to enter the US
is not at all the same thing as,
has a right to enter the US
. It is true that border agents have wide immediate discretion but it is also true that legal residents of the United States have a right to re-enter. That is not "unconditional" at all. There are all sorts of situations where they have violated some other law and no longer can enter. However, they also might not have even been accused of violating any laws, and do in fact have a legal right to enter.
That should be painfully obvious to everybody when they first see "unconditional" added into the conversation. It is a Red Flag for horse shit.
Get back in the pile, Wilbur
Obama didn't even sign the executive order, so there is no way he is responsible for selecting what list to use in it.
If there was some list during President Obama's term that had the same countries on it, that is not surprising at all. For context we'd need to know how many different lists of countries a President normally creates during his term, by whatever metric the list is being credited to the President. It is unlikely that the number of lists is going to be so low that the particular combination of countries would be some sort of valuable invention that others would know because those who went before them cited them together in a different context.
This is why liberals, who have a lot of individualist/libertarian views, do not try to advertise it; the people already squatting on the word are anti-libertarians!
We need a new word for the old thing, because the corporatists will never give up their misuse of the old word.
Threatening us with confinement in concentration camps is unlikely to persuade us that your ideas have rational validity, nor is it likely to improve the moderator response.
OK, so he did manage to uncover how stupid you are being here. You imply that you think the risk of death by terrorism is 1:1000. That's simply wrong. No wonder you come to incorrect conclusions, your input data is garbage.
Too bad for you weird *-ist shit is what popped out, but you were guaranteed some kind of garbage after all.
It isn't arbitrary, Federal vs State budgets and taxes are actually separate already before any of this analysis is done. It may have been arbitrary when established, but once entrenched it is simply the reality that you have to accept.
Then you jump through insane hoops to try to pretend that Democrats are just stupid dillweeds who don't create any economic activity, even in rich States where they are the majority. You got your whole world-view from AM radio and even though you're educated enough to form sentences and paragraphs, you spew insane bullshit like that without a second thought.
I doubt there is even any hope for you. You can't comprehend how stupid what you said is, and you never will. I mean, you didn't notice that most of the economic activity is from the cities, and the rich states are ones with big cities. In States like California and New York, the Democrats are clustered in the cities, as is the profit and taxes, and the state and federal aid that you worry about is disproportionately given to rural communities. No part of your zero-game fantasy is similar to reality, no part.
AM radio
I didn't say it is hard to believe, I said if you define the word that way then it has no utility, no meaning.
Words are more effective when they describe less than 100% of the possible things. That way by combining words, you can say specific things. When a word describes everything, then using the word or not using the word have the same meaning.
He talked about "draining" a swamp, I don't think anybody said anything is going to end up dry, or that there won't still be a swamp.
You're blaming them, but you're the one who had to spend two weeks futzing with it and kept using it.
Take responsibility for your own actions, however awful windoze is, as a windoze user you have responsibility for every negative impact it inflicts on you. And if you're in IT, you have responsibility for all the harm you've inflicted on users with it.
Why is it worrying? Don't forget to include an idea in your idea! What are you worried about, and why does being worried about it affect the analysis you responded to?
Were you meaning to indicate merely that you agreed, but were unable to phrase it except as disagreement?
This is just click-flame-bait. By their definition all countries would be "corrupt." And it is logically absurd to claim that because some example of ethical violations exist in a country, that therefore the country itself "is" corrupt. It means everything is corrupt, even the word corrupt becomes so corrupted that it has no meaning.
You might not be understanding how common hydrogen is or how many of the things that scientists do that require "messing with" it in some way.
Room temperature superconductors could cause a jump of orders of magnitude in capability across a wide range of technologies.
Forget the cell phone, I'm ready for some transparent aluminum or plasteel.