Shutdown Over Border Security?

[carpedm9587]

Again, you assumed. You shouldn't do that. There is some saying about that I think..

Are you taking nanny lessons from Chuck?

No - I am pointing out your broad brush. It's a discussion board. When someone say something that isn't true, I think they can safely expect someone to respond.

When you speak with those terms, you are speaking with too broad a brush. Personally, my habit is to acknowledge when I have spoken too broadly. CP calls me on it whenever I do it. It's a bad habit. I leave it to you to decide what you want to do about it. Hiding behind "I didn't explicitly say 'all'" isn't very constructive, IMO. I'm sure that concerns you a great deal...

[Terraceth]

I think you forget that the courts have swung hard to the right under Trump, and SCOTUS is now dominated by originalists and conservatives. The National Emergencies Act has never been ruled unconstitutional. I doubt it is going to be under this court. My prediction (which I have made before): this will go all the way to SCOTUS and SCOTUS will split 5-4 in favor of Trump.

Hrm... well, I found this article useful in learning about the legal questions involved:

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/15/182253...ies-act-border

Basically, they asked a bunch of legal scholars about the whole situation and gave their responses. Based on this and some other things I've read, the challenge that the border situation is not an emergency is unlikely to succeed in court, as the National Emergencies Act doesn't really give a definition of an emergency. Its purpose is less in defining what constitutes an emergency as it is defining what a president can do as a result of declaring an emergency. So the real question is whether or not Trump's border wall building plans are justified by the powers granted by the National Emergencies Act or not.

In regards to the SCOTUS, well, a lot could depend on exactly what Trump is going to try to do. Sure, he wants to build the wall, but I'm not sure if the specifics of that have been made clear, and a lot could turn on what things he'll do exactly and what he'll cite as giving him the authority to do so. Someone could point to Trump v. Hawaii, but that case was (at least to the Supreme Court) never about whether the president had the authority to enact a travel ban like that--not even the dissent disputed that point--but whether the specific implementation of it violated the Establishment Clause. That concern is not here at all, but there is a much better argument regarding whether the laws give the president the authority to do what Trump wants to.

Of course, there is always the possibility that Congress will simply override the whole thing, which they can do if 2/3 of each house signs up to do so, though the likelihood of that is unclear.

[carpedm9587]

Hrm... well, I found this article useful in learning about the legal questions involved:

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/15/182253...ies-act-border

Basically, they asked a bunch of legal scholars about the whole situation and gave their responses. Based on this and some other things I've read, the challenge that the border situation is not an emergency is unlikely to succeed in court, as the National Emergencies Act doesn't really give a definition of an emergency. Its purpose is less in defining what constitutes an emergency as it is defining what a president can do as a result of declaring an emergency. So the real question is whether or not Trump's border wall building plans are justified by the powers granted by the National Emergencies Act or not.

In regards to the SCOTUS, well, a lot could depend on exactly what Trump is going to try to do. Sure, he wants to build the wall, but I'm not sure if the specifics of that have been made clear, and a lot could turn on what things he'll do exactly and what he'll cite as giving him the authority to do so. Someone could point to Trump v. Hawaii, but that case was (at least to the Supreme Court) never about whether the president had the authority to enact a travel ban like that--not even the dissent disputed that point--but whether the specific implementation of it violated the Establishment Clause. That concern is not here at all, but there is a much better argument regarding whether the laws give the president the authority to do what Trump wants to.

Of course, there is always the possibility that Congress will simply override the whole thing, which they can do if 2/3 of each house signs up to do so, though the likelihood of that is unclear.

Unclear?

I would say a snowball in Death Valley in July would have a better chance of survival than any bill that attempts to reverse the NEA, especially in the current political climate.

[One Bad Pig]

Unclear?

I would say a snowball in Death Valley in July would have a better chance of survival than any bill that attempts to reverse the NEA, especially in the current political climate.

I'm surprised that a veto has been overridden as recently as Barak Obama's presidency.

[Starlight]

Funny, liberals think when it comes to pregnancy, men have no say because they are not women. In matters of race, whites can't comment on black issues because they are not black, or on gay issues if they are not gay, etc.

That is simply not true.

A lot of liberals would say it's particularly important to listen to the views of the people directly involved. But that's not remotely the same as not being allowed to comment or have an opinion.

[Tassman]

I think you forget that the courts have swung hard to the right under Trump, and SCOTUS is now dominated by originalists and conservatives. The National Emergencies Act has never been ruled unconstitutional. I doubt it is going to be under this court. My prediction (which I have made before): this will go all the way to SCOTUS and SCOTUS will split 5-4 in favor of Trump.

The armed forces can be called upon in a national emergency, when they are essential for the national defense. But even the most right-leaning judiciary will have a problem ruling in favor of Trump’s National Emergency, given that there is there is scant evidence to indicate that a border wall is in fact urgent and essential to the national defense.

[Starlight]

I would love the link to that study.

I had almost despaired of being able to find it because the podcast I saw the interview on doesn't have well-organised archives...

...but I found it. Here's the interview with the researcher, Harvard Professor Yochai Benkler, I saw a few months ago:

(hmm, for some reason that vid cuts off after 25 mins or so. You can watch the other half hour of the interview here.)


And thus, here is Harvard University's article about the research and the book:

A major contribution of the book is what the researchers call an “asymmetric polarization” model that stems from their research on partisan media ecosystems. The model, created with data from the media sources most cited during and after the election period, shows that left-wing media outlets are more closely aligned with centrist media outlets, and right-wing media sources are much more skewed and “are operating in their own media world,” Roberts said....

“There are clearly two sides, and those two sides are not the same. The right is more insular; it’s more extreme; it’s more partisan,” Faris said of the findings. “That’s not a subjective opinion; that’s an empirical observation. And much of what we try to do in this book is to document that and understand what it means and how it’s reflected in different behavior.”

Their book itself has been made free to read online by Oxford University press.


In the course of looking for that I found that Pew has pages and pages of interesting research on very similar topics which might also interest you.

[carpedm9587]

I'm surprised that a veto has been overridden as recently as Barak Obama's presidency.

Well, as Dad used to say, "nothing is certain until it happens." But I have to admit to some doubts that any party will join (in whole or in part) in a vote to limit the powers of their own president. If any president needs it, it's this one, but I'll be amazed to see it.

If it happens - I owe you a dinner.

[carpedm9587]

The armed forces can be called upon in a national emergency, when they are essential for the national defense. But even the most right-leaning judiciary will have a problem ruling in favor of Trump’s National Emergency, given that there is there is scant evidence to indicate that a border wall is in fact urgent and essential to the national defense.

I'm not seeing anything in the act that defines "national emergency," which is the basic problem. What it defines is what a president can do. Unless I'm missing something?

[carpedm9587]

I had almost despaired of being able to find it because the podcast I saw the interview on doesn't have well-organised archives...

...but I found it. Here's the interview with the researcher, Harvard Professor Yochai Benkler, I saw a few months ago:

(hmm, for some reason that vid cuts off after 25 mins or so. You can watch the other half hour of the interview here.)


And thus, here is Harvard University's article about the research and the book:

A major contribution of the book is what the researchers call an “asymmetric polarization” model that stems from their research on partisan media ecosystems. The model, created with data from the media sources most cited during and after the election period, shows that left-wing media outlets are more closely aligned with centrist media outlets, and right-wing media sources are much more skewed and “are operating in their own media world,” Roberts said....

“There are clearly two sides, and those two sides are not the same. The right is more insular; it’s more extreme; it’s more partisan,” Faris said of the findings. “That’s not a subjective opinion; that’s an empirical observation. And much of what we try to do in this book is to document that and understand what it means and how it’s reflected in different behavior.”

Their book itself has been made free to read online by Oxford University press.


In the course of looking for that I found that Pew has pages and pages of interesting research on very similar topics which might also interest you.

Thanks!

[Sparko]

No - I am pointing out your broad brush. It's a discussion board. When someone say something that isn't true, I think they can safely expect someone to respond.

When you speak with those terms, you are speaking with too broad a brush. Personally, my habit is to acknowledge when I have spoken too broadly. CP calls me on it whenever I do it. It's a bad habit. I leave it to you to decide what you want to do about it. Hiding behind "I didn't explicitly say 'all'" isn't very constructive, IMO. I'm sure that concerns you a great deal...

You seem to be on some sort of brush kick this week. Been watching Bob Ross videos?

[Sparko]

That is simply not true.

A lot of liberals would say it's particularly important to listen to the views of the people directly involved. But that's not remotely the same as not being allowed to comment or have an opinion.

If you think men should help decide if a woman gets an abortion, just shut up
Jessica Valenti

Telling whites to shut up.
https://www.blackenterprise.com/27-t...ck-co-workers/

I have read dozens of blogs and articles about men shutting up about abortion because they are not women and don't have a womb, or whites not commenting on black issues because they aren't black.

I don't care if you have an opinion Starlight, I just think you really have no right to comment on our politics because you are not a US citizen and really have no clue what our culture is like from the inside. You are not one of us. Your opinions are useless.

Not to mention you are so far left that your opinions are off the hook for even our worst liberals here.

[Cow Poke]

You seem to be on some sort of brush kick this week. Been watching Bob Ross videos?

He seemed a bit touchy late last week, so I'm giving him a little space.

[Starlight]

If you think men should help decide if a woman gets an abortion, just shut up
Jessica Valenti

I take it you didn't bother actually reading your own link? First two paragraphs:

Every once in a while, someone – usually a man – will ask if men should “have a say” in a woman’s decisions about abortion. So sure, guys, yammer away all you want. It’s a free country.

But under no circumstances should men have any legal rights over women’s pregnancies.

[carpedm9587]

You seem to be on some sort of brush kick this week. Been watching Bob Ross videos?

Actually - I'm usually alert to broad brush statements. I'm noting how many times people speak in these superlative terms - and how corrosive it is to our ability to discuss and exchange ideas. The first step to dismissing people is to label them "other." "Those liberals" "Those conservatives" "Those Republicans" "Those immigrants." As soon as they are not part of our own herd, they can be dismissed, vilified, ridiculed, and even attacked (verbally or physically).

I don't think it helps any of us to approach people that way, so I'm trying to root it out in myself - and I'm pointing it out when I see it. CP has been doing the same for/to me - and I've appreciated his efforts.