|
Is there no enforcement mechanism for that damages cap other than judges choosing to abide it?
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Is there no enforcement mechanism for that damages cap other than judges choosing to abide it? She doesn't have authority to lift the damage cap on her own, but this is basically her sending the question of the constitutionality of punitive damage caps up to the higher court. When the Texas legislature passed the caps, they said, "This might be unconstitutional, but someone will challenge it if it is. We just want to take those trial lawyers down a peg." And now someone actually is challenging it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 06:04
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Is there no enforcement mechanism for that damages cap other than judges choosing to abide it? The damages cap is established by law, so theoretically judges have to abide by it, and of they don't, a higher court will overrule them. In this case, however, the judge is saying that the damage cap law violates the state constitution, and therefore the law itself should be overturned by the courts as unconstitutional. If this ruling is upheld by the appeals court and the Texas Supreme Court, then the damages cap will be completely removed from state law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 06:05
|
|
|
If you take 538’s redistricting map as a baseline, Democrats won about 8 more likely / leaning for the opposing party or tossup seats than Republicans did. Decent for a midterm year expected to be apocalyptic.
Eregos fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Nov 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
Another mass shooting in Virginia(yes, a new one tonight, not the UVA one) making the front page of CNN so there's two different mass shooting stories on their page. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/22/us/chesapeake-virginia-walmart-shooting/index.html Honestly, not sure why I'm even posting it here. This sick, lovely country doesn't care. We're fine with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 09:06
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:but they consider the preservation of decorum a much more important goal than any of those things, and so, here we are. Most Americans who are not fascists do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 10:21
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Most Americans who are not fascists do. They are actively taught that preserving decorum will defeat fascism, somehow, no matter how many examples are offered to the contrary. The ones who disagree are labelled terrorists and actively sought out, imprisoned and murdered by law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:They are actively taught that preserving decorum will defeat fascism, somehow, no matter how many examples are offered to the contrary. The ones who disagree are labelled terrorists and actively sought out, imprisoned and murdered by law enforcement. I don't know that that's true. For most people it seems more they just want anything that breaks their tranquility to be smothered so they can go on not paying attention. Then again this discussion was about non-fascist sympathizers and I think most americans are kinda sympathetic to fascism and just don't realize it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 14:05
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Then again this discussion was about non-fascist sympathizers and I think most americans are kinda sympathetic to fascism and just don't realize it. Well yeah, because we've had a decades long (almost a century, really) of representative democracy failing to actually represent the average American. Now pile on top of that the desire for quick, easy answers to massive complex systemic problems and of course you'll get a subconscious sympathy to some of the aspects of fascism. Most people would be happy with a benevolent dictator, as long as said dictator acted the way they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the list of things democrats should have done with a legislative trifecta is not a short one. Can you be a little more specific about how "the preservation of decorum" stopped things from happening? It's extremely vague, so it's hard to tell specifically what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Can you be a little more specific about how "the preservation of decorum" stopped things from happening? It's extremely vague, so it's hard to tell specifically what you're talking about. the most obvious case was the parliamentarian saga, where the democratic party decided that if a single unelected official, one wholly in their power to dismiss and reappoint, ruled against them, the only thing to do was shrug and tell the American people 'welp we tried guess that's not happening, real shame.' it would have been -indecorous- to seek to circumvent the parliamentarian in order to accomplish their political goals. and so they did not do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the most obvious case was the parliamentarian saga, where the democratic party decided that if a single unelected official, one wholly in their power to dismiss and reappoint, ruled against them, the only thing to do was shrug and tell the American people 'welp we tried guess that's not happening, real shame.' “We can’t give republicans any ammunition to criticize us.” Republicans: “Democrats are grooming your kids! Help us find a final solution for these diseased perverts before it’s too late.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the most obvious case was the parliamentarian saga, where the democratic party decided that if a single unelected official, one wholly in their power to dismiss and reappoint, ruled against them, the only thing to do was shrug and tell the American people 'welp we tried guess that's not happening, real shame.' Do you have any evidence that the Democrats had enough senate votes willing to go full Calvinball and completely ignore senate rules despite not having enough votes to pass even a limited carveout in senate rules? Or are you conflating the entirety of the last two year's legislative agenda with the one or two edge cases that might have gotten through by replacing the parliamentarian with someone more friendly (and also assuming Manchin/Sinema would have gone along with it).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the most obvious case was the parliamentarian saga, where the democratic party decided that if a single unelected official, one wholly in their power to dismiss and reappoint, ruled against them, the only thing to do was shrug and tell the American people 'welp we tried guess that's not happening, real shame.' It'd help if you explained a little more than an extremely vague single sentence, as if you were talking to people who can't read your mind and know exactly what you're talking about. But regardless of the specific events at issue, it's pretty easy to see that (in general, divorced of any single specific event in the last two years) the thing preventing Schumer from just firing the parliamentarian during the 117th Congress isn't just "decorum". After all, the only real impact of getting a more favorable parliamentarian ruling is that it would allow the Dems to pass legislation with just 50 votes instead of 60 votes. The Dems wouldn't need to do that if they just removed the filibuster. But they couldn't remove the filibuster, because they didn't have 50 votes for being able to pass legislation with just 50 votes. Manchin and Sinema opposed any attempt to generally circumvent the 60-vote requirement via overturning the filibuster, so it's quite likely that they would have opposed replacing the parliamentarian as well. While replacing the parliamentarian itself doesn't actually require their votes (it can be done at will by the Senate leadership, I think), passing reconciliation bills with parliamentarian approval still requires a full 50 votes - something that's very unlikely to happen if senators 49 and 50 believe the bill shouldn't have qualified for reconciliation and was forced into it against their opposition. And from there, the only real direction left for the discussion to take is yet another dive down the well-traveled road of "could they have somehow forced Manchin and Sinema to fall in line", which I personally am very bored of because it's deeply speculative and hypothetical and that back-and-forth has been done to death here already. If the Dems had a few more seats in the Senate, they'd have no problem replacing the parliamentarian and passing legislation with 50 votes. But if they had the votes to do that, they could also just remove the filibuster altogether. I can't read the minds of all current and future senators, but practically speaking, it's hard to see how a senator would oppose lifting the filibuster directly but support having the parliamentarian play Calvinball with reconciliation to avoid the filibuster. The former is not only more decorous, but also more effective, and the magic number without the filibuster is 50 votes regardless of how you got around the filibuster. So the only reason to mess with the parliamentarian at all would be to decorously avoid touching the filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
The FTX debacle continues to demonstrate that crypto is a tepid rewarming of old scams https://twitter.com/ddayen/status/1595418930104786944 https://twitter.com/ddayen/status/1595422113208406016 Incoming House Majority Whip and Minnesotan drunk driving enthusiast Tom Emmer led the charge both with the letter and donation reciepts: quote:More consequentially, Emmer was the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm for House Republicans, this year. The NRCC’s associated super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, received $2.75 million from FTX in the 2022 cycle; $2 million from Salame in late September, and $750,000 from the company’s political action committee.  quote:Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) said through a spokesperson that the congressman was not attempting to influence ongoing investigations at the SEC, and did not exchange any communications with FTX. He was merely concerned with the SEC’s procedure and guidance with crypto firms, which some have described as “regulation by enforcement.” Donalds was not one of the members who received donations from FTX. Lets check the March letter to see if anyone would interpret it as influencing ongoing investigations: quote:We have questions regarding the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the Commission) utilization of Division of Enforcement and Division of Examination authorities to obtain information related to cryptocurrency and blockchain firms. Those authorities are better suited to the SEC’s divisions charged with seeking public commentary as part of the rulemaking process. In case you needed further clarity on if this was intended to halt investigations, we have the author's own statements: quote:Emmer made clear in his March Twitter thread that the letter was based on complaints from crypto firms, and that his intent was to stop the SEC from making these inquiries. “Crypto startups must not be weighed down by extra-jurisdictional and burdensome reporting requirements,” Emmer wrote. “We will ensure our regulators do not kill American innovation and opportunities.” If this sounds a bit familiar to you, it would for John McCain too: quote:THE UNORTHODOX LETTER IS ANALOGOUS to the 1987 “Keating Five” scandal. Then, five senators (including a young Arizona Republican named John McCain) pressured the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) into shutting down an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan and its chair Charles Keating Jr. Keating was a donor to all five senators, giving $1.3 million over the years. quote:But the catastrophe at FTX hasn’t stopped Emmer from continuing to boost crypto. At an event with the crypto trade group the Blockchain Association just last week, Emmer told the assembled crypto honchos, “You are here to stay,” and that nobody should “rush in and put a huge wet blanket of regulation atop this industry just because something didn’t go right.” quote:In March, the Blockchain Association applauded the bipartisan letter, saying that “champions” like Emmer were making America “a crypto innovation leader.” The Blockchain Association’s director of government affairs, Ron Hammond, was previously the financial services policy lead for Rep. Davidson, one of the letter’s signatories. Don't worry though, the top Congresscritters are going to get to the bottom of this: quote:The House Financial Services Committee has announced hearings during the lame-duck session into the FTX collapse. Emmer, Torres, Gottheimer, Auchincloss, Davidson, and Budd are all members of that committee. Unfortunately, they won’t be the ones forced to answer the questions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 16:17
|
|
directly lobbied
|
Jarmak posted:Do you have any evidence that the Democrats had enough senate votes willing to go full Calvinball and completely ignore senate rules despite not having enough votes to pass even a limited carveout in senate rules? Or are you conflating the entirety of the last two year's legislative agenda with the one or two edge cases that might have gotten through by replacing the parliamentarian with someone more friendly (and also assuming Manchin/Sinema would have gone along with it). if as you suggest these two intransigent senators were the reason the party valued decorum over accomplishing political goals, my response is: then the democratic party valued decorum over accomplishing its political goals. you are not disagreeing with my assessment, you are explaining the mechanics by which my assessment was demonstrated to be correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you have any evidence that the Democrats had enough senate votes willing to go full Calvinball and completely ignore senate rules despite not having enough votes to pass even a limited carveout in senate rules? Or are you conflating the entirety of the last two year's legislative agenda with the one or two edge cases that might have gotten through by replacing the parliamentarian with someone more friendly (and also assuming Manchin/Sinema would have gone along with it). You don't have to replace the parliamentarian, who serves at the pleasure of the Majority Leader, you can just have the presiding officer of the Senate overrule them. If you don't want to do anything about the parliamentarian, a simple vote can change the offending rules. The position itself is less than 100 years old and we've only had 6 Senate Parliamentarians. In the most recent case, the Democrats totally had the votes to pass what they wanted but the parliamentarian said parts of the bill wouldn't work. If they actually wanted to pass that, they could have either changed the rules, over ruled the parliamentarian or replaced her. Instead they declared their hands tied. So apparently we had 50 + Harris to enact something, but less than 50 wanting to enact something so bad that they'd still vote yes if Harris or Schumer ignored the parliamentarian's ruling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:if as you suggest these two intransigent senators were the reason the party valued decorum over accomplishing political goals, my response is: then the democratic party valued decorum over accomplishing its political goals. What does this even mean? Are you admitting the Democrats did not have the votes to pass the legislation you're referring to (but still haven't cited)? How are you squaring the party not having enough votes as a mechanism for proving the party as a whole cares more about "decorum" (whatever that means) then passing legislation. How were they supposed to pass legislation without votes and how does their failure to utilize that method speak to the motivations of the party as a whole? What does "decorum" even mean in this context specifically? Because I'd argue if you're suggesting going full calvinball and seizing power then preserving liberal democracy is one of the democratic party's political goals. Are you saying that because 2 senators valued decorum over whatever vague goals you're referring to that's proof that the (I'm assuming national) democratic party subscribes to those views as a whole across both legislative bodies and the presidency? I don't find the argument that because less than one percent of democratic legislators vote one way that is proof that the organization holds those values as a whole very compelling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Gyges posted:You don't have to replace the parliamentarian, who serves at the pleasure of the Majority Leader, you can just have the presiding officer of the Senate overrule them. If you don't want to do anything about the parliamentarian, a simple vote can change the offending rules. The position itself is less than 100 years old and we've only had 6 Senate Parliamentarians. This is true but the immediate mechanism of how the Parliamentarian could be circumvented is immaterial to the point I was making. I'd actually argue that that path was even less likely to work with Manchin/Sinema given the optics and direct effect of it being such a close mirror of removing the filibuster. At least with replacing the Parliamentarian you could hem and haw and obfuscate about them not doing a good job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
Gyges posted:
If this isn't the biggest microcosm of the modern Democratic Party then I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is true but the immediate mechanism of how the Parliamentarian could be circumvented is immaterial to the point I was making. I'd actually argue that that path was even less likely to work with Manchin/Sinema given the optics and direct effect of it being such a close mirror of removing the filibuster. At least with replacing the Parliamentarian you could hem and haw and obfuscate about them not doing a good job. this is you admitting that the reason the Democrats did not override the parliamentarian was the Democratic Party valuing decorum over their political goals accomplishing the goal had fewer votes, within the democratic party, than preserving 'the optics.' they were presented with a binary choice between the two options, and we can see which option they chose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:this is you admitting that the reason the Democrats did not override the parliamentarian was the Democratic Party valuing decorum over their political goals If that's the case, it sounds like Manchin and Sinema valued decorum over the political goals of the other 48 senators, and ascribing that position to "the Democratic Party" as a whole makes no sense and muddles the whole point into incomprehensibility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:this is you admitting that the reason the Democrats did not override the parliamentarian was the Democratic Party valuing decorum over their political goals What goals? What does decorum mean in this context? Is this just a smokescreen for another round of Manchin/Sinema=Democratic party?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If that's the case, it sounds like Manchin and Sinema valued decorum over the political goals of the other 48 senators, and ascribing that position to "the Democratic Party" as a whole makes no sense and muddles the whole point into incomprehensibility. are they members of the democratic party, or aren't they. a democratic trifecta was presented with a choice between accomplishing its political goals, and preserving decorum. which option did the democratic trifecta select.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:are they members of the democratic party, or aren't they. The democratic trifecta is a concept, not a sentient entity, it does not "select" things in anything but the descriptive sense. I'm not sure how many votes the democrats had for their specific policies in the house (you still haven't given a specific example of what goal you're talking about), but let's go with the most conservative possible estimate and say 218 (minimum required to pass legislation by majority vote). That's 268 democratic legislators who are in favor of whatever policy you're talking about, and 2 that are not, or .7%. You have evidence that .7% of the democratic party values decorum over accomplishing its political goals for whatever vague definition of those two concepts you're using.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Please try to stick to actual current events and not the debate about what the parliamentarian was really thinking two years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:are they members of the democratic party, or aren't they. It is not possible for the national democratic party to forbid people who won't cooperate from running for election or re-election. They can and often will tell the national party to gently caress off, and if they can convince the voters in their state to vote for them, then there's really not a drat thing the national party can do about it while they are in office. This ultimately isn't going to work out well for Sinema who is likely going to be primaried out, but there's nothing they can do about Manchin, who is beloved by his local WV party and who actually uses his willingness to "stand up to my own party" as a selling point for re-election in his state. So pointing at Manchin and saying everything he does is the fault of the national party is not only unfair, it is also extremely stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The democratic trifecta is a concept, not a sentient entity, it does not "select" things in anything but the descriptive sense. I'm not sure how many votes the democrats had for their specific policies in the house (you still haven't given a specific example of what goal you're talking about), but let's go with the most conservative possible estimate and say 218 (minimum required to pass legislation by majority vote). your interest in pawning off an organization's massive failure, and all the human suffering resulting, on a few bad apples within it is understandable. it is also thoroughly irrelevant to a discussion of what the results of that organization's actions were. the democratic trifecta was an organization accountable exclusively to its own membership, in the passage of legislation. it was presented with a binary choice between accomplishing its political goals and, as you said, 'preserving the optics.' which of these options did they choose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:your interest in pawning off an organization's massive failure, and all the human suffering resulting, on a few bad apples within it is understandable. it is also thoroughly irrelevant to a discussion of what the results of that organization's actions were. The "Democratic Trifecta" was not presented with a choice, if it were they would have passed all of their legislative priorities because within the "Democratic Trifecta" they were in 99%+ in agreement with doing exactly that. Legislation isn't passed by one party, it's passed by the entirety of the two houses of congress, which includes a group called "Republicans" which are not part of the "Democratic Trifecta". The organization which failed to pass this legislation was not "The Democrats" it was the United States Congress. The only organization you can draw direct conclusions of aggregated priorities and intents by the binary criteria of "did bill pass" is the United States Congress, of which the democratic party only controlled a slim majority of. The aggregate values and priorities of the democratic party can only be inferred from the aggregate actions and results of the democratic party in isolation. The aggregate actions and results of the democratic party plus the republican party only inform the aggregate values and priorities of the combined US Congress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If that's the case, it sounds like Manchin and Sinema valued decorum over the political goals of the other 48 senators, and ascribing that position to "the Democratic Party" as a whole makes no sense and muddles the whole point into incomprehensibility. We didn't get a whip count after the parliamentarian made her ruling, so it's not really fair to blame any one or two Senators specifically for not being willing to ignore the parliamentarian. Given previous history on filibuster and other rules and gentelmen's agreements in the Senate, it's almost certainly more than just Sinema and Manchin who didn't want to override the issue. Almost every change to make the Senate more democratic since I've been alive has been done by the Republicans. Because they care more about doing whatever they want to do than the prim and proper way to do them. I think the only real change by the Democrats was Reid making non-Supreme Court judges exempt from the filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Friends, please do not derail back and forth in an unprovable argument (thus ensuring it can go on forever) about what someone was truly thinking 2 years ago. All mind-reading must be on recent events or something that it is actually provable to give it an end point and free the rest of the class from it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Edit: didn't see the mod note.
DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Nov 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
if someone wants to start a separate thread on the Democratic Party and how it's incapable of actually accomplishing anything, go hog wild! the argument is kind of like "does voting matter" in that it's been done to death and we're just going to spend a few pages going in circles repeating the same arguments over and over until it generates a pile of reports and a few probes and nobody will have learned anything new or interesting
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
I don't see any stories on this at the moment. But, I just got an AP news alert that Turkey accidentally droned a group of Americans in Syria. Says no casualties, so not sure how serious it was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
Edit: nvm
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
edit: whooops mod note. Anyhow, I was correct that nobody would care about the mass shooting, I see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:edit: whooops mod note. Dark Joke: Which of the three in the last 24 hours? Even sadder joke: Which of the two in Virginia in the last 24 hours? The only "good" thing about the most recent mass shooting is that it appears that the shooter was also an employee at the same Wal-Mart, so it wasn't part of some group or planned spree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Another mass shooting in Virginia(yes, a new one tonight, not the UVA one) making the front page of CNN so there's two different mass shooting stories on their page. Everyone assumedly saw this post, scrolled down, and decided discussing 2 year old takes on why the Democratic Party sucks for the 8000th time was more current events worthy. Not a single other person cared enough to even mention it in passing. I can’t blame them. really says something about the state of this dogshit country
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:
When you say “care about” do you mean “post about?” If not, what makes you think you know how people feel about the shooting?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
pencilhands posted:Everyone assumedly saw this post, scrolled down, and decided discussing 2 year old takes on why the Democratic Party sucks for the 8000th time was more current events worthy. Not a single other person cared enough to even mention it in passing. Maybe it’s good that some people read about a horrible mass shooting and didn’t feel the need to post sanctimonious bullshit on a dead gay comedy forum’s bad politics thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 17:55
|
|