American politics 2016: Lawyers, Guns, and D-Money

Steinbeck's quote about Americans all seeing themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" is useful to keep in mind when one gets too carried away with the idea that economically progressive policies would win the white house. But I do think younger generations are shifting more in that direction.

the great depression was the only event that ever radicalized large numbers of americans, but the great recession does seem to have done some work in that direction for the younger generation.

less "radicalized" more "destroyed all the hopes of"

via Pierce, the Brennan Center reports on elected judiciaries... working out about as well as other stuff

"In a handful of states, retention campaigns have become intense, high-profile,and expensive —frequently in response to a decision in a controversial case or when there is an opportunity to change the ideological composition of a court. Average per seat spending in retention elections in 2009-14 reflects a ten-fold increase from the average over the previous eight years. Overall, nearly $6.5million was spent on retention races in three states in 2013-14. Multi-million-dollar elections in Illinois and Tennessee were some of the most expensive and contentious races this cycle. The trend puts new pressures on judges who had previously been largely insulated from politicized judicial elections....

"One hotly-contested race in 2004, for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court, shattered the national record for a two-candidate race. Supreme Court justices in Illinois are elected from districts, not statewide. Special interests zeroed in on the Fifth District, in the mostly rural southern part of the state, because it was home to Madison County, considered a mecca for class actions and large jury verdicts. The American Tort Reform Association, a pro-business lobby, called the county's court a "judicial hellhole." Although the ideological balance of the high court was not in play, business trade associations, insurance companies and medical groups made large contributions to support the Republican candidate, Lloyd Karmeier. Plaintiffs' lawyers largely funded Democrat Gordon Maag's candidacy. Altogether, the two campaigns raised and spent an astounding $15.1 million. The winner, Karmeier, reflected after his victory: "That's obscene for a judicial race. What does it gain people? How can people have faith in the system?" Karmeier later courted controversy when he voted to overturn billion-dollar class action judgments against large corporations which backed him in his 2004 campaign."

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a45802/elected-judiciaries/

Muzzies are the new commies, can't you see?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gingrich-revive-house-un-american-activities-committee/ar-AAh3r8Z?ocid=ansmsnnews11

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/us/politics/senate-filibuster-gun-control.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Well, it looked good...

Aides to Mr. McConnell said that his plan all along was to allow votes on the proposals, largely because Republicans want votes on their own amendments to the appropriations measure and not just on the gun issue. The aides said that Mr. Murphy and the Democrats were killing time to score political points.

...When the gun control amendments were voted on in December, they were part of a similar agreement. Also, similarly to December, Republicans know they have the votes to defeat the Democrats’ proposals.

For all the theater, Mr. Murphy’s main achievement beyond delivering the Democrats’ message on C-Span — and creating a sensation on social media — was to force at least one Republican to remain in the chair as presiding officer, as well as to keep all of the essential Senate clerks and other floor staff members at work for a long night.

Once Mr. McConnell and Mr. Reid assured Mr. Murphy of a tentative deal, all of those people got to go home.

v skeptical. i mean maybe they're telling the truth but

Given the political tension after the Orlando shooting — and the heightened pressure of a high-stakes presidential election year — Mr. McConnell and the Republicans understood it would be impossible to deny the votes.

when did the "political tension" ever stop them from doing shit things before?

In terms of rabid right-wing gun-nut perceptions, even allowing a vote on a gun-related measure is capitulation to tyranny, and I'm sure they're already frothingly mad at any Republican who would even go that far. Even WaPo was running a headline like "Trump Would Consider Gun-Control Laws," and I'll bet it caused some right-wing apoplexy (if anyone saw it, which is questionable).

Kinda weird that the W. Post ran that as the lead headline in the newsprint this morning

I had some idea about GOP targeting of state-houses/gerrymandering prior to listening to this interview, but didn't realize how much of a complete coup 2010 was and how systematic it was until I listened to it (transcript also available):

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/482150951/understanding-congressional-gerrymandering-its-moneyball-applied-to-politics

less "radicalized" more "destroyed all the hopes of"

― ejemplo (crüt)

where else does radicalism come from?

Well, it looked good...

Aides to Mr. McConnell said that his plan all along was to allow votes on the proposals, largely because Republicans want votes on their own amendments to the appropriations measure and not just on the gun issue. The aides said that Mr. Murphy and the Democrats were killing time to score political points.

...When the gun control amendments were voted on in December, they were part of a similar agreement. Also, similarly to December, Republicans know they have the votes to defeat the Democrats’ proposals.

For all the theater, Mr. Murphy’s main achievement beyond delivering the Democrats’ message on C-Span — and creating a sensation on social media — was to force at least one Republican to remain in the chair as presiding officer, as well as to keep all of the essential Senate clerks and other floor staff members at work for a long night.

Once Mr. McConnell and Mr. Reid assured Mr. Murphy of a tentative deal, all of those people got to go home.

― curmudgeon,

Like I said in the Second Amendment thread, I'm uneasy about connecting the no flight list with gun control. If it chips away at congressional fear of the NRA in the same way that the 1957 Civil Rights Act did the Southern filibuster, maybe I'd endorse it.

I'm ok with creating a "no-buy" list for guns, but it would have to have some kind of due process involved and not just like Dept of Homeland Security picked these people bc they look intersting. And of course this could be problematic if the list is based on FBI investigations/suspicions, because it would tip off the person under suspicion if they discovered they were unable to buy a gun (although I suppose the same is true of a no-fly list so w/e).

Brief mention of due process in this NY Times editorial:

Some critics say the government’s terror watch lists sweep up far too many innocent people. But the Feinstein bill allowed law enforcement officials to block a sale only after showing that a prospective gun buyer on the watch list was known or suspected to be involved in terrorism. If blocked, the person could challenge that denial in federal court. (A competing bill introduced by Senator John Cornyn, a Republican, would give authorities only three days to prove that a suspect is about to commit an act of terrorism — a nearly impossible standard to meet.)

Other effective measures include universal background checks to intercept people who are legally barred from gun ownership, like those convicted of domestic abuse and the mentally ill; and limits on magazine capacity, which some states have already enacted. Mr. Mateen was able to kill 49 people largely because the assault rifle he was using could fire 30-round clips as fast as he could pull the trigger. No civilian anywhere should be allowed to have that ability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/opinion/the-nras-complicity-in-terrorism.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

I'm ok with creating a "no-buy" list for guns, but it would have to have some kind of due process involved and not just like Dept of Homeland Security picked these people bc they look intersting.

Eh, I'd be fine if such a list started with "ALL WHITE MALES." They cause the most havoc with guns of all types.

i'm really not too worried about abrogating ppl's constitutional right to buy a gun for whatever reason

White males suck, it is true.

Even if you're not worried about it, it won't stand up in court. xp

More generally, I find it uncomfortable that people on the left who are generally opposed to restricting civil liberties and expanding surveillance on the grounds of "terrorism" seem to take a different tack when it comes to "terrorism with guns." Like it's bad for the government to be creating all these secretive and arbitrary lists of people and targeting a specific group for surveillance...but if guns are involved, more restriction and more surveillance please.

i feel the opposite - that ppl who supposedly understand the extreme danger of gun violence and the massive casualties they've inflicted bizarrely get concerned about the rights of ppl to own said guns if not done in precisely the right way.

My concern is for the ramifications for other rights. Reverse Heller or repeal the second amendment and it's much less of a problem.

the right-wing is far less scrupulous when it comes to abrogating ppl's rights based on their policy preferences. while there's a time + place for consistent principled constitutionalism i'm willing to make an exception for gun ownership.

I would think ACLU constitution types would likely agree w/ Man Alive. Their interest in due process protection for all is not bizarre to me.

If the Scalia Supreme Court had not expanded the 2nd amendment's individual right aspect in Heller, with the word "militia" now unimportant, maybe some of the discussion would be different. But it did.

yeah i guess i understand why constitution types would be concerned but generally speaking i am a strong supporter of things like the first amendment bc i believe in it not bc it just incidentally is in the bill of rights. i understand the consideration that once you start ignoring aspects of the constitution / bill of rights etc you risk removing the urgency from other unrelated parts but tbh that ship has sailed, at least on the right no one actually gaf about principled constitutionalism except when it can be used to forward their policy goals.

i don't like this on principle nor as a means of preventing terrorist attacks nor mass shootings

better idea would be to ban gun ownership to people convicted of domestic abuse, maybe any violent crime.

Most federal judges do give at least something of a fuck about principled constitutionalism, even Scalia did, he was just really good at using mental and verbal gymnastics to get around it in the cases that were most important to his personal beliefs (or his chamber of commerce backers)

There were many cases where Scalia showed concern for 4th and 5th amendment rights

better idea would be to ban gun ownership to people convicted of domestic abuse, maybe any violent crime.

― goole, Thursday, June 16, 2016 3:32 PM

That NY Times editorial upthread mentions the "domestic abuse" proposal in its summary of gun control ideas opposed by the NRA, but trying to get the Republicans to sign off on any of these remains difficult of course

yeah i kinda think "due process rights" are at least up there with "things like the first amendment." it's not some arbitrary, oh, because it's in the bill of rights it's equally important. yeah we've been on a long, long backwards slide into a police state but no sense joining forces with that trend. i mean we've got a decade's worth of people pointing out very pointedly, and from personal experience of being profiled and abused and targeted, that the court-of-star-chamber no-fly list is super fucked up. we should be dismantling that, not giving it credibility so that the next time someone says we should do something about it, the answer is "oh but now those people will be able to get guns and all the great work of 2016 will be undone!"

i get the impulse to say, look, people are dying, this is an emergency, anything that helps us control gun proliferation and gun violence is a good thing... but i really can't sign on to that.

it's dishonest imo to conflate "due process rights" w/ the right to buy a gun

???? i'm talking about being placed on no-fly lists. the conflation is done in the act of linking gun-buying to those lists.

we should be trying to live in a country less like a secret-police state, not enshrining the techniques of same.

i'm not an expert on due process law but from my pov it protects u from "arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law," and a no fly list is neither arbitrary nor a denial of life liberty or property. gun rights advocates would say that denying someone the right to buy a gun is a denial of their liberty but not imo.

Mordy, The due process rights are in regards to taking away someone's constitutional 2nd amendment right to buy a gun without a constitutionally safe legal procedure.

People should have the right to challenge no-fly list placements, but the basis is different

Yes I'm aware of the claim I just don't buy it as morally relevant.

2014 case

The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutionally-protected interest in “a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity” – which the group of 13 said was damaged by their inclusion on the list. In this case, the government didn’t even contest the fact that people on the list suffer a stigma as a result of being on it.

The right to travel is also a recognized constitutional interest, but the government argued commercial airline travel doesn’t fit under that umbrella and that people on the no-fly list can use other modes of transportation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/25/judge-rules-no-fly-list-unconstitutional/

wait wait wait wait wait. how is a no-fly list not arbitrary? how is it not a denial of liberty or property? procedural due process involves being able to face one's accuser, present evidence in open court, etc. etc. here, let's go to wikipedia:

Procedural due process

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. The article "Some Kind of Hearing" written by Judge Henry Friendly created a list of basic due process rights "that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority."[16] These rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, are:[16]

An unbiased tribunal.
Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
The right to know opposing evidence.
The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

"no-whatever" lists basically fail all of that. i would call them kafkaesque but according to google that has been done five thousand times already.

You're making a legal case to argue against a moral one - the discourses overlap but are not synonymous. I don't believe from a moral perspective anyone has a right to own a gun and I'm as concerned with keeping to a legal constitutional fidelity about as much as I am committed to any unjust law that is enshrined in a legal system.

i don't like this on principle nor as a means of preventing terrorist attacks nor mass shootings

― goole, Thursday, June 16, 2016 11:31 AM (22 minutes ago

i share your (and man alive/alfred's) civil liberties concerns but i think it's important to remember that the point of these laws isn't necessarily to prevent "mass shootings" but rather the everyday killings that don't make national news but compose the bulk of gun deaths. pushing to pass these laws after horrific tragedies is, unfortunately, just the most politically feasible way to do it

though yes starting with domestic violence and other violent criminals is a great place to start, but by no means is it enough

My only moral concern would be the general erosion of concern for law which is obv strong underpinning of society but in this case I think that saving lives takes precedence. This is not dissimilar to right wing anti abortion advocates except that this principle is not a fantasy about saving lives but actually about real lives.

the ACLU also reminds us that "the criteria for inclusion are so broad and vague that they inevitably ensnare innocent people engaged in First Amendment-protected speech, activity, or association." it is the kind of power a police state wants, and uses. getting rid of the guns is profoundly important; in my dream world we punt the second amendment and start an enormous buyback-and-melt-down program.

in the meantime i am all for moving forward on assault weapons bans, background checks, long-ass waiting periods, mandatory long boring training/licensing programs, denial of guns to people with actual, on-file records for violent crimes, and whatever else we can think of. it's not like giving tacit - hell, explicit - support to the idea of secret lists of People We Know Are Bad is the only way to do deal with this crisis.

mordy a no-fly list that is secretive and does not allow challenge is the very definition of arbitrary, come on. and while i share your views on guns in general it seems obvious that many would consider the restriction on flying or buying a gun to be an infringement on their liberty

I respect and agree w/man alive's and Alfred's concerns about the legality/feasibility of the proposed measures but from a moral standpoint I totally agree with Mordy re:

You're making a legal case to argue against a moral one - the discourses overlap but are not synonymous. I don't believe from a moral perspective anyone has a right to own a gun and I'm as concerned with keeping to a legal constitutional fidelity about as much as I am committed to any unjust law that is enshrined in a legal system.

The no-fly list already exists and it isn't what is under debate. The debate is whether to use it to prevent gun acquisitions. I understand if you're afraid of enshrining it but expanding it to guns, esp if it's politically feasible, doesn't inherently concern me.

The word "arbitrary" does not appear in the due process clause Mordy. With all due respect you are just inventing your own version of the fifth and fourteenth amendments that have little do do either with the text or the way they have been interpreted for 200+ years.

I don't think you really understand the argument I'm making if you think it has anything to do with legal precedence.

The no-fly list is under debate and the subject of court challenges. That's part of the point.

Ok, I mean if your argument is "I don't think we should have a constitution" or "I don't think we should take the constitution very seriously" that's fine. There are functioning modern democracies that don't have constitutions at all.