|
Evil Fluffy posted:That's still a demotion from his current position of "most powerful non-SCOTUS judge in the country." Comes with good benefits and weather though 
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
UberJew posted:Comes with good benefits and weather though If he wants to retire from the judiciary, sure, but otherwise switching from an actual job with a real impact on the country that is his until he quits or dies to one that is very limited in term with no actual power is insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:There's no upside to Obama withdrawing Garland's nomination at this point. At the very least having Garland sit unconfirmed (or voted down) in the coming months allows the Democrats to hammer the GOP on it repeatedly and especially in senate races that could be close in states where a lot of people believe Garland should get a hearing. Pull his nomination and you lose all of that. There's literally no upside for Obama or the Democrats by pulling Garland's nomination. The upside is getting to be the one that makes Mitch McConnell cry big blubbery tortoise tears.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They also threw out the seagate test used for determining treble damages in patent infringement cases because it was too rigid and instead it is now purely discretionary at the trial level. A rare instance of SCOTUS being more pro-patent than the Fed Cir. On the bright side, opinion work is going to become a thing again now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
mdemone posted:The upside is getting to be the one that makes Mitch McConnell cry big blubbery tortoise tears. McConnell would cry tears of joy if Obama pulled Garland. "Obama wasn't serious about nominee" or "Obama wisely acknowledges GOP's belief that the election in November should decide the SCOTUS's fate" and other such headlines would be all over the place. McConnell wouldn't care if Hilary has a shot at winning because he'd have several vulnerable GOP Senators at less risk of losing their seats due to not being able to be attacked over Garland. As I said before, there is no upside for Obama and the Dems to pull Garland. Doing so would be a gift to the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They also threw out the seagate test used for determining treble damages in patent infringement cases because it was too rigid and instead it is now purely discretionary at the trial level. I don't suppose that'll make trolling less certainly profitable and therefore less common, will it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:I don't suppose that'll make trolling less certainly profitable and therefore less common, will it? The opposite - it makes it more likely a troll gets treble damages if they win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Is today's Puerto Rico decision as bad for Puerto Rico as it sounds/the dissent says? It seems like they really might be hosed. It seems like a pretty dry statutory interpretation case but to my (non-lawyer) eyes the majority seems fairly persuasive. When should pragmatism trump plain meaning, if ever?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If she wins and the Democrats take the senate they are absolutely going to confirm him as fast as possible because everyone knows that a Democrat majority senate is going to kill the filibuster as soon as the GOP uses it against a nominee for pretty much anything. Or do you mean that they'd override the filibuster, which sounds like the logical thing for them to do, so naturally they didn't try it back in 2009-2010?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Didn't they already kill filibusters for judicial nominees? Or does that not count for SCOTUS? SCOTUS is excluded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
The filibuster will die the next time one party has majorities in both houses and the Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Yes! D.C. Court of Appeals rules that regulating broadband providers as utilities, and enforcing net neutrality, are perfectly appropriate Federal actions.quote:WASHINGTON — High-speed internet service can be defined as a utility, a federal court has ruled, a decision clearing the way for more rigorous policing of broadband providers and greater protections for web users. Appeal expected, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Is today's Puerto Rico decision as bad for Puerto Rico as it sounds/the dissent says? It seems like they really might be hosed. It seems like a pretty dry statutory interpretation case but to my (non-lawyer) eyes the majority seems fairly persuasive. When should pragmatism trump plain meaning, if ever? It is bad, especially since the solution being advanced by congress is to appoint an unelected board made up of mostly bankers to oversee Puerto Rico's finances, with the power to overrule whatever PR's governor and legislature does. They will probably impose severe austerity on the few remaining people who have not yet fled the island, and give the bondholders only a small haircut. Unfortunately, the decision was probably also correct, there's a reason why 2 liberals joined the majority. Sotomayor's dissent is dubious at best, and seems to rely mostly on an emotional need to rescue Puerto Rico, so I'm shocked that RBG joined her dissent. Puerto Rico needs to apply for statehood or seek independence. The loons in Puerto Rico who have argued in favor of their current status and blocked the statehood movement in the past will hopefully now see that their current status is unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Yes! D.C. Court of Appeals rules that regulating broadband providers as utilities, and enforcing net neutrality, are perfectly appropriate Federal actions. If they appeal and Clinton wins or Garland gets confirmed I wonder if they'll just drop it as a lost cause since at most they'd get a 4-4 ruling and it seems really unlikely Clinton would appoint an anti-NN justice, or that Garland would overturn this ruling. Northjayhawk posted:It is bad, especially since the solution being advanced by congress is to appoint an unelected board made up of mostly bankers to oversee Puerto Rico's finances, with the power to overrule whatever PR's governor and legislature does. They will probably impose severe austerity on the few remaining people who have not yet fled the island, and give the bondholders only a small haircut. So Puerto Rico stands a chance of getting hosed in to the ground like Michigan? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:It is bad, especially since the solution being advanced by congress is to appoint an unelected board made up of mostly bankers to oversee Puerto Rico's finances, with the power to overrule whatever PR's governor and legislature does. They will probably impose severe austerity on the few remaining people who have not yet fled the island, and give the bondholders only a small haircut. Between this and that double jeopardy decision the other week, I think they should just be like "hey, it's America's debt, not ours, we're not a separate entity from Congress"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Was there any reason given for rejecting the American Samoan Citizenship case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Was there any reason given for rejecting the American Samoan Citizenship case? There never is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Is there a good source for how Puerto Rico wound up in this economic situation? Statehood seems like it would make the problem worse, not better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Is there a good source for how Puerto Rico wound up in this economic situation? Statehood seems like it would make the problem worse, not better. Congress basically made PR an in country tax haven for decades. They stopped recently, and Capitol flight set in. This is compounded by decades of PR assuming the status quo could never change and neglecting to (supposedly) neglecting infrastructure upgrades today stay competitive with other Caribbean nations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Congress basically made PR an in country tax haven for decades. They stopped recently, and Capitol flight set in. The first part is only possible because Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the US. That means that the US constitution does not fully apply and Puerto Rico's government does not have the full powers of a state government. Incorporated territories such as Alaska and Hawaii before they became states had state like powers and congress was limited in the laws it could pass by the US constitution. Its pretty hosed up that the insular cases still apply, but hey Puerto Rico keeps voting to be a colony.  This is why Puerto Rico and the rest of the US territories (Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam) are on the UN's list of non self governing territories. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its pretty hosed up that the insular cases still apply, but hey Puerto Rico keeps voting to be a colony. Didn't they try for statehood in 2012 and get blocked by Congress?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Didn't they try for statehood in 2012 and get blocked by Congress? It was a vote on two questions: 1. Should Puerto Rico continue its current territorial status? Yes: 46% No: 54% 2. Which non-territorial option do you prefer? Statehood: 61% Free Association: 31% Independence: 5% BUT: 1/3 of the ballots cast were protest votes with the 2nd question blank. Ballots that did not answer the 2nd question were invalidated and not counted towards the first question. So statehood did not get anywhere near the majority of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Not really seeing how this isn't the product of Puerto Rico's internally poor governance, or how being a state or independent would help their economy. I say this as someone born there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
John Oliver did a good segment about how Puerto Rico got into this mess. I highly recommend finding it on YouTube
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:John Oliver did a good segment about how Puerto Rico got into this mess. I highly recommend finding it on YouTube Short summary is that as a state, they would have more help available to them to fix the situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:John Oliver did a good segment about how Puerto Rico got into this mess. I highly recommend finding it on YouTube Please don't say things like this. We should really have better sources available than the Daily Show With Swears. Cripes, forget I asked, vox did an OK job. It looks like I was pretty much correct. duz posted:Short summary is that as a state, they would have more help available to them to fix the situation. Wouldn't the additional restrictions required by the application of constitutional law, as well as federal regs generally, massively accelerate capital flight? Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:It is bad, especially since the solution being advanced by congress is to appoint an unelected board made up of mostly bankers to oversee Puerto Rico's finances, with the power to overrule whatever PR's governor and legislature does. They will probably impose severe austerity on the few remaining people who have not yet fled the island, and give the bondholders only a small haircut. It's not like small poo poo economies really have a choice. The usual story is that they hit a huge financial bubble and spend like drunken sailors pretending there's never ever going to be another bump in the road. See Norway for the exact opposite- similar countries have competently managed sovereign wealth funds that actually understand basic realities like just because you're making a fuckton of money on _resource_ right now doesn't mean you will in the future. At any rate... there's this strange idea that persists among many on the left that there's actually options when poo poo hits the fan. Like austerity is a dumb punishment when instead they could do y. But in reality only really loving large important economies actually have options: levers they can pull to employ economic tricks to stimulate the economy and such. The US can do that because even when their economy was cratering to the center of the earth they still had jackasses willing to lend at basically 0% interest rate. Well no loving poo poo you have a lot of options when that's the case. But small poo poo economies don't have that, there's no way in hell they are going to get that kind of financing and why they hell would they? Is anyone here willing to lend PR a bunch of cash for a small interest rate? No? Of course not, why on earth would you when there's safer options that are paying more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There never is. I just don't understand why it isn't an 8-0 Yes, people born on in the US are US citizens, just like all the other territories.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Please don't say things like this. We should really have better sources available than the Daily Show With Swears. It might, but they would qualify for federal programs that they currently don't, and more importantly they would have 2 senators and 4 or so house reps to advocate for them in Congress
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I just don't understand why it isn't an 8-0 Yes, people born on in the US are US citizens, just like all the other territories. ? That isn't true The law of the land is that people born in territories controlled by the United States are nationals by birth. It then granted citizenship to various categories of people, but Congress did not pass a law stating that everyone in US territory is a citizen. The only territories in which Congress granted citizenship to were Alaska, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/subchapter-III/part-I OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Jun 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Is there a good source for how Puerto Rico wound up in this economic situation? Statehood seems like it would make the problem worse, not better. In the long run, they would be better off. Hawaii flourished when they got those all-important 2 senators. A few votes in the house might not mean much, but 2 votes in a 102-vote Senate would be enormous. Puerto Rico Senators could demand more funds for their state in exchange for their support in close, controversial issues. If they are not going to seek independence, then it is just madness to not go for statehood and settle for territory status. The least-important most dirt-poor state will have an enormous advantage over them simply due to politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I just don't understand why it isn't an 8-0 Yes, people born on in the US are US citizens, just like all the other territories. Read up on the insular cases
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:In the long run, they would be better off. Hawaii flourished when they got those all-important 2 senators. In the short run, they have a public debt of 72 billion, a government debt of 2 billion, lost ~10% of their population from 2010 to 2015, and would have to replace pretty much every municipal structure and law on every island but Mona to enter federal compliance. It's difficult to perceive how backwards governance is there from within the states, if it's still like it was back when I briefly lived there. Puerto Rican statehood would make sense after a managed bankruptcy and an extensive period of federal investment to get them up to speed- although existing and proposed federal regs would still sink the economy of a theoretical Puerto Rican state. It's the poster child for why a universal $15 minimum wage is a bad idea, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:In the long run, they would be better off. Hawaii flourished when they got those all-important 2 senators. That's part of it, but the bigger change was commercial jet service to Hawaii that began at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:? hobbesmaster posted:Read up on the insular cases Yes, these seem pretty on the face of them super hosed up and wrong to the point where they should be overturned 8-0. A large part of why these became law is White Man's Burden claptrap. They also are in opposition to my reading of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Gyges fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jun 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Yes, these seem pretty on the face of them super hosed up and wrong to the point where they should be overturned 8-0. A large part of why these became law is White Man's Burden claptrap. They also are in opposition to my reading of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Undoing those cases would mean reckoning with what exactly is up with the territories and forcing either statehood or independence on them, likely. Court probably isn't super thrilled about setting that going.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
It's also possible the court would rather deal with such issues with a full 9.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Yes, these seem pretty on the face of them super hosed up and wrong to the point where they should be overturned 8-0. A large part of why these became law is White Man's Burden claptrap. They also are in opposition to my reading of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Congress has control of naturalization law as enumerated in the Constitution and that's what it set for territories.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:In the short run, they have a public debt of 72 billion, a government debt of 2 billion, lost ~10% of their population from 2010 to 2015, and would have to replace pretty much every municipal structure and law on every island but Mona to enter federal compliance. It's difficult to perceive how backwards governance is there from within the states, if it's still like it was back when I briefly lived there. I agree that PR has generally had pretty bad governance, but that doesn't mean that their bizarre territory status doesn't make this harder for them. Most small economies who suffer from bad governance have the very important ability to negotiate bankruptcy and restructure their debt when their bad governance catches up to them. This also allows their creditors (if we take a charitable view of international banking here) to sort of undo their bad governance somewhat by demanding certain changes in exchange for the restructuring and further lending. But PR's hands are tied. They desperately want to declare bankruptcy, but they're not allowed to. This is why their territory status is hurting them. If they were a state, or independent, they could do this, but they can't. Like, you're saying "why would this be any better if they were a state or independent" and then you're listing reasons why PR statehood would be a complicated transition. Which is true. But it has little to do with the issue at hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
alnilam posted:I agree that PR has generally had pretty bad governance, but that doesn't mean that their bizarre territory status doesn't make this harder for them. Most small economies who suffer from bad governance have the very important ability to negotiate bankruptcy and restructure their debt when their bad governance catches up to them. This also allows their creditors (if we take a charitable view of international banking here) to sort of undo their bad governance somewhat by demanding certain changes in exchange for the restructuring and further lending. But PR's hands are tied. They desperately want to declare bankruptcy, but they're not allowed to. This is why their territory status is hurting them. If they were a state, or independent, they could do this, but they can't. Actually, it's a real problem for countries that there is no soverign bankruptcy mechanism. They can just default, but there's no structured bankruptcy process and that's been a real problem in the past - there's always some holdouts that refuse to negotiate and no way to cram down a reasonable settlement on the holdouts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 16:02
|
|