The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

In a way, as Reason's blog indicated, it's a very judicial restraint type of decision

In this case, maybe, but the reasoning can really be used to either to accomplish either restraint or activism depending on what the end result is. Bottom line, the United State Supreme Court has shown a new willingness to re-write poorly drafted legislation where the intent of the legislature is clear. I think that is a departure from prior precedent. Generally, appellate courts won't even consider the intent of the legislature unless the language of the statute is ambiguous, or would lead to an absurd result (which is not the same as a result that the legislature did not intend.)

Is my state, the appellate courts go even further on the judicial restraint side. The language of the statute controls, period, EVEN IF the result would be absurd or something the legislature clearly didn't intend. As someone who has argued in front of my state's appellate courts 100+ times there is something clean and workable and desirable about that. The separation of powers is truly respected. Because you get to focus on the language first, not history or politics or whatever. Once you have to argue history or politics, biases are going to come in. Because while sometimes legislative intent is objectively clear, much more often it's just believed to be clear by the appellate court that wants a certain outcome. And just having that ability to try to interpret what the legislature meant gives the judiciary the power to make law in closer cases. I wish it wasn't too much to ask for federal or state legislatures to draft statutes that say what they mean. But since it apparently is, I'm not 100% gung-ho in favor of my state's approach either. Though, it has been much easier for my state legislature to amend statutes than it ever would be for the federal legislature.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

In this case, maybe, but the reasoning can really be used to either to accomplish either restraint or activism depending on what the end result is. Bottom line, the United State Supreme Court has shown a new willingness to re-write poorly drafted legislation where the intent of the legislature is clear. I think that is a departure from prior precedent. Generally, appellate courts won't even consider the intent of the legislature unless the language of the statute is ambiguous, or would lead to an absurd result (which is not the same as a result that the legislature did not intend.)

Not really. Legislative intent as a primary interpretative gloss has always been a major school of legal jurisprudence. Textualism was really just some sort of minor school of SCOTUS Jurisprudence until Scalia gave it greater prominence (just look at Substantive Due Process cases - from Lochner to the Warren Court and beyond).

FWIW, the ruling indicates that the area up for discussion is ambiguous and Roberts goes to lengths to show how, by mostly looking at the statute as a whole and seeing how the small part at issue fits into that.

[SirFozzie]

GOP lawmakers: Time to move on from Obamacare repeal - Manu Raju and Burgess Everett - POLITICO

It's interesting to see who has taken the cluebat of sanity upside the head and who is still frothing at the mouth. "The first 50 times we tried to defund the law didn't work.. but this time it will. Why? (whispers) because it's all we have left. My tea party constituents don't call any more and I'm lonely.. I need positive attention and I can only get it in a quixotic attempt to do the impossible" (/whispers)

[JPhillips]

Obama's eulogy and message on grace was very moving for me.

[Grover]

Paul LePage Jokes About Shooting Newspaper Cartoonist

The most embarrassing governor in this country.

[Subby]

Great moment yesterday.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Subby

Great moment yesterday.

What do you guys think - planned or not?

I think he had planned to maybe do it if it felt right but did not make the call until right then and there.

Great imaging.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

Congrats to you and all Americans!

[corbes]

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/1000....nav=top-news]

Obama's full eulogy for Clementa Pinckney was really moving, capped of course by the singing of Amazing Grace, which Subby linked above. My wife and I watched this together last night; it was a perfect way to end to a beautiful day.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Subby

Great moment yesterday.

I overuse the word amazing, but this truly was amazing--grace. God bless.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Per some above comments, I think your point is that some of the "bad stuff" may have happened in the OT as a historical record but its not approved by God.

The OT is problematic for me. I always had an issue with the Book of Job and cannot reconcile my belief in a God that encouraged and allowed those things to happen to Job.

Every time I see "OT", I think of the Star Wars original trilogy and have to stop.

[bob]

OT is overtime for me.... takes me a second to re-adjust my train of thought.

[claphamsa]

“The problem for the Republican Party is that you have a recalcitrant minority trying to hold off a tolerant majority,” says David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute. “The increased salience of social issues is a challenge for Republicans. Candidates like Bush — who have to think about running in a general election — know there’s a shift going on and they have to react. … That’s why most of the [top-tier] candidates will try to avoid these issues. But the ones who aren’t at that level, they are going to keep bringing them back.”

Read more: The Grand Old Party’s future shock - Glenn Thrush and Kyle Cheney - POLITICO

this... (quote from politico)

[digamma]

Gay marriage ruling posts moved to separate thread. Please continue the discussion there.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by digamma

Gay marriage ruling posts moved to separate thread. Please continue the discussion there.

Thanks dig!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Every time I see "OT", I think of the Star Wars original trilogy and have to stop.

LOL. OT is used for so many things. My go-to was "On Topic" forum, when posting on a Civilization message board (I still do, but no one seemingly posts on the On Topic boards anymore).

Now, I'm more included to use it for Old Testament, but still the On Topic pops into mind. (FWIW, the Book of Job is my favorite book of Scripture).

[JPhillips]

I know this isn't exactly the same thing, but the conservative justices arguing that we have to look at the whole law and see what was intended is funny given their freak out over the subsidies decision.

EPA points out that other parts of the Clean Air Act expressly mention cost, while [the power plant clause] does not. But this observation shows only that [the power plant clause's] broad reference to appropriateness encompasses multiple relevant factors (which include but are not limited to cost); other provisions’ specific references to cost encompass just cost. It is unreasonable to infer that, by expressly making cost relevant to other decisions, the Act implicitly makes cost irrelevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants....Other parts of the Clean Air Act also expressly mention environmental effects, while [the power plant clause] does not. Yet that did not stop EPA from deeming environmental effects relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants.

[Tekneek]

I fully expect outrage over this JUDICIAL TYRANNY!

Of course this decision contradicts dissenting views from other decisions. It is like they write these things without considering the consistency from their other decisions and maybe nobody will ever read them well enough to notice.

[PilotMan]

Some really interesting and important rulings out today.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/29/politi...ection-ruling/

Supreme Court Places A Stay On Abortion Law In Texas : The Two-Way : NPR

Supreme Court Blocks Obama Administration Plan On Power Plant Emissions : The Two-Way : NPR

Supreme Court Backs Arizona's Redistricting Commission Targeting Gridlock : The Two-Way : NPR

Supreme Court Rejects Arizona Kansas Voter Registration Appeal | The Daily Caller

[Thomkal]

Meanwhile, in Oklahoma:

10 Commandments statue must be removed from state Capitol, Oklahoma Supreme Court rules | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com

Find it kind of hard to believe that Oklahoma, perhaps the most conservative evangelical state there is, ruled this way. Can't believe it'll happen though.

[Edward64]

Obama did a good job on Cuba. Its time to try something different and let bygones by bygones. Cuba hasn't been a threat for a while now.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politi...ies/index.html

But Congress, controlled by Republicans, has shown little sign that it intends to end the embargo. Several GOP candidates for President expressed their opposition to the shift in policy.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was quick to criticize Obama's move to reopen embassies.

"It's unacceptable and a slap in the face of a close ally that the United States will have an embassy in Havana before one in Jerusalem," tweeted Cruz, who is seeking the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

In a statement, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio vowed to oppose the confirmation of an ambassador to Cuba until the Castro regime makes several concessions, including "securing greater political freedoms for the Cuban people."

And former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the Cuban government had made no changes that suggest re-engagement would benefit Cuban citizens.

"The Cuban people today are not any freer politically or economically, and President Obama has failed to account for what the Castro regime has done in the last several years that warrants such an enormous shift in a longstanding U.S. policy," he said.
:
:
U.S. engagement with their country, and said it was time to look toward the future.

"You can't hold the future of Cuba hostage to what happened in the past," Obama said, quoting a Cuban resident.

The President agreed, pointing out that the Eisenhower administration had severed ties with Cuba in the same year that Obama had been born.

"You don't have to be imprisoned by the past," he said. "If something isn't working, we can and will change."

But after his announcement, protesters in Miami spoke out against the move, indicating at least some pockets of the Cuban community are not supportive of his policy.

[Edward64]

I think Jimmy is speaks the truth and possibly too nice about it. I also agree you can't blame Obama (directly) for everything but it did happen on his watch.

(The last 2 paragraphs seem contradictory so not sure what to think.)

Jimmy Carter Calls Obama's Foreign Policy Success 'Minimal'

Former President Jimmy Carter said recently that he finds President Barack Obama's success on the world stage to be "minimal."

“I think he’s done some good things domestically like the health program and so forth, but on the world stage, just to be as objective about it as I can, I can’t think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over,” he said in a conversation with Aspen Institute CEO Walter Isaacson last week.

“If you look at Russia, if you look at England, if you look at China, if you look at Egypt and so forth -- I’m not saying it’s his fault -- but we have not improved our relationship with individual countries and I would say that the United States influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower now than it was six or seven years ago,” he added.

The 39th president repeatedly said that he did not blame Obama for the current state of world affairs. Instead, Carter attributed the decline to an historical trend of the U.S. relinquishing "its unquestioned domination of world politics and cultural influence."

Carter did, however, praise John Kerry for his "outstanding” work as secretary of state.

"I can't think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over," he added.

[Edward64]

Interesting read on China and what's been happening in SE Asia. Its a "game" and don't think that Obama's presidency (for whatever reason e.g. distractions from the war, congress, domestic issues etc.) has been playing well, and sometimes wonder, if he really wants to play beyond the quote below of "simply countermeasures".

The vacuum is being filled by China. I think China policy is going to be one of my hot buttons for this election cycle.

With an absent United States, China marches on - The Washington Post

In January 2007, not long after George W. Bush announced his surge of troops into Iraq, I happened to be having lunch with a Chinese friend who is a well-connected member of the Communist Party. I asked him how the news was being received in Beijing. He replied in words to the effect of: “We would hope that you would send the entire American Army into Iraq and stay for another 10 years. Meanwhile, we will keep building up our economy.” I thought of that story this week while traveling in Southeast Asia. As the Islamic State, Iran and Greece occupy the attention of the Western world, China marches forward, except now it is not just building its economy but also a new geopolitics in Asia.

Recently released satellite photos show that China has almost completed an airstrip on one of the many artificial islands it has created in the Spratly archipelago over the past year and a half. Its actions in the area are intended to consolidate its claims to 90 percent of the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in trade flows every year. (These claims are disputed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.)

President Xi Jinping has marked a break with his predecessors in openly embracing an activist foreign policy, speaking about the “Asia-Pacific dream” and announcing ventures such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the “Maritime Silk Road.” Behind this rhetoric is an avalanche of cash. Scholar David Shambaugh points out that if you add up China’s promised investments in all of these regional ventures, the total is $1.41 trillion. The Marshall Plan, by comparison, cost $103 billion in today’s dollars.

A senior Southeast Asian diplomat explained to me that China is using money and pressure to “suborn” countries in the region. He pointed out that aid is often carefully targeted, so that money to Malaysia, for example, is directed specifically to the state of Pahang, the political base of the prime minister. “In Myanmar and Thailand, [the Chinese] make sure the generals get their share of the contracts,” he said. In smaller countries such as Cambodia and Laos, Chinese money dominates the economy.
:
And how do diplomats in Southeast Asia see the United States? As distracted and largely absent. The ones I spoke with credit the Obama administration with the right basic strategy in its “pivot” to Asia, but they fault it for little follow-up and poor implementation. They have been heartened by the moves forward in Congress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement but worry that it has taken too long in the face of relentless Chinese advances.
:
“What we want from Washington is not simply countermeasures, but sophisticated, nuanced and persistent diplomacy,” says Kishore Mahbubani, former foreign secretary of Singapore. The United States was “able to do this during the Cold War, when you were in competition with the Soviet Union. You had to listen to locals, woo countries and above all be deeply, continuously engaged. I don’t see that anymore.”

[Edward64]

Insurers are asking for significant increases in rates which could mess up the affordable in Obamacare. Its yet to see how it plays out, the last 2 paragraphs below talks about the 80% threshold and how companies are exceeding it.

My gut tells me 30+% increases are ridiculous but if audits truly show they are paying out much more than the 80%, then I agree that its unsustainable and rates will need to be increased, some services need to be decreased, or other competitors will take up the slack.

Log In - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.
:
President Obama, on a trip to Tennessee this week, said that consumers should put pressure on state insurance regulators to scrutinize the proposed rate increases. If commissioners do their job and actively review rates, he said, “my expectation is that they’ll come in significantly lower than what’s being requested.”

The rate requests, from some of the more popular health plans, suggest that insurance markets are still adjusting to shock waves set off by the Affordable Care Act.

It is far from certain how many of the rate increases will hold up on review, or how much they might change. But already the proposals, buttressed with reams of actuarial data, are fueling fierce debate about the effectiveness of the health law.
:
The rate requests are the first to reflect a full year of experience with the new insurance exchanges and federal standards that require insurers to accept all applicants, without charging higher prices because of a person’s illness or disability. The 2010 health law established the rate review process, requiring insurance companies to disclose and justify large proposed increases. Under federal rules, increases of 10 percent or more are subject to review.

Federal officials have often highlighted a provision of the Affordable Care Act that caps insurers’ profits and requires them to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care and related activities. “Because of the Affordable Care Act,” Mr. Obama told supporters in 2013, “insurance companies have to spend at least 80 percent of every dollar that you pay in premiums on your health care — not on overhead, not on profits, but on you.”

In financial statements filed with the government in the last two months, some insurers said that their claims payments totaled not just 80 percent, but more than 100 percent of premiums. And that, they said, is unsustainable.

[Tekneek]

Hard for me to believe that many plans are exceeding that, especially since every year we have received notices that our provider is not spending enough and we get a rebate. Perhaps ours is the exception to the rule.

[Warhammer]

This is what hacks me off about this. How in the world are we supposed to put pressure on a state regulator to keep rates down?

My health insurance as a family is much worse than 2-3 years ago, and now rates are going to be an issue? The way this law went down hacks me off. With businesses, there was a department that sought the best bang for their buck, if rates went up, they would seek out a better plan. With government there is no real incentive to reduce cost. With insurers unable to charge more than others through the government plan, insurers have to move those increased fees elsewhere.

[cartman]

There are some people here in Texas losing their collective shit over the Alamo being designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site. I'm pretty sure a Venn diagram of the people upset over this and people convinced that Jade Helm is a government plot to enslave them would be a single circle.

[PilotMan]

I had a bunch of facebook posts on mine that clearly showed Texas was getting ready to secede.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cartman

There are some people here in Texas losing their collective shit over the Alamo being designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site. I'm pretty sure a Venn diagram of the people upset over this and people convinced that Jade Helm is a government plot to enslave them would be a single circle.

On a side note I think the Alamo is very underwhelming as a tourist site.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

On a side note I think the Alamo is very underwhelming as a tourist site.

Yeah, most people say it was nowhere near as big as they were expecting. Also they are disappointed to find out there really isn't a basement.

[bob]

Originally Posted by cartman

There are some people here in Texas losing their collective shit over the Alamo being designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site. I'm pretty sure a Venn diagram of the people upset over this and people convinced that Jade Helm is a government plot to enslave them would be a single circle.

Why in the hell would you be mad that it was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site? That just means that it is a location of special cultural or physical significance. And gives them access to funds (if wanted) to maintain the site.

[JPhillips]

You can't spell UNESCO without UN One World Government.

[Edward64]

Who knows if this is really a good deal but its a good sign that it was a collaborative effort with allies plus Russia & China. A nice win (for now) for Obama.

I'm sure Iran will cheat some and there will some wiggle room due to different interpretations of the agreement. Obama says we'll hold them to it but who knows what will happen with Russia & China.

In the end, its something instead of continuing on the current course and only time will tell.

Historic deal reached with Iran to limit nuclear program - The Washington Post

In the end, the basic outline of the agreement hewed closely to, and in some areas expanded, a political framework reached in early April between Iran and the P5+1 — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — along with the European Union.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

On a side note I think the Alamo is very underwhelming as a tourist site.

Really?

To my considerable surprise, it was probably the second most emotional place I've ever visited (Ground Zero being the top).

I had very little in the way of expectations on that visit, found it to be incredibly moving.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Really?

To my considerable surprise, it was probably the second most emotional place I've ever visited (Ground Zero being the top).

I had very little in the way of expectations on that visit, found it to be incredibly moving.

What did you find moving about it?

I found a cheap tourist attraction in the middle of San Antonio that gave really no sense of history. I visited the place after Air Force boot camp.

In contrast my parents wanted to visit some local catholic mission and it provided a much deeper sense of history.

[cartman]

Across the street from the Alamo is the Menger. The bar in the lobby of the hotel also holds a lot of history. Teddy Roosevelt recruited his Rough Riders while holding court there. The first public display of barbed wire occurred right outside the doors of the hotel, and orders were placed in the bar area.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

What did you find moving about it?

I found a cheap tourist attraction in the middle of San Antonio that gave really no sense of history. I visited the place after Air Force boot camp.

In contrast my parents wanted to visit some local catholic mission and it provided a much deeper sense of history.

Not being particularly interested in the site prior to the visit, I think I was taken aback by the utterly unimpressive nature of it. Just how small it was really.

Standing in the rooms, walking around, really felt a sense of the desperation along with the claustrophobic nature of the scene. Some three dozen or so Tennesseans, nearly a half dozen Georgians, dying a very long way from home. Somewhere around reading the list of names, just a tremendous sense of grief overtook me.

An inadequate explanation I guess, I've never really been able to quite put my finger on it really.

[Edward64]

First poll out. I guess I'm in the 35%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...04740a3de47ca?

A Monmouth University poll conducted in the days leading up to the Iran nuclear agreement announced Tuesday found that a majority of Americans don't believe Iran will abide by the terms of a deal.

Asked how much they trusted Iran to abide by the terms of a potential deal limiting its nuclear program, 55 percent of respondents answered "not at all," while 35 percent said they trusted Iran "a little." Only 5 percent had "a lot" of trust that the country would stick to the terms of an agreement.

A plurality of Americans, however, stated support for the ongoing negotiations: Forty-nine percent said they thought the talks were a good idea, while 36 percent thought they were a bad idea.

Sixty-one percent of respondents who identified as Democrats said they favored negotiations for a deal, compared to 38 percent of those who identified as Republicans.

[EagleFan]

Because Iran has done so much to earn trust...

[ISiddiqui]

Have we? I mean we started a war against the neighbor of Iran just because we felt like it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The biggest question I have about that poll is who the hell the 38% of (presumably self-identifying) Republicans who thought this was a good idea were.

I think somebody fudged their affiliation.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Have we? I mean we started a war against the neighbor of Iran just because we felt like it.

Straw man. That question was about Iran's trustworthiness.

Our lack of trustworthiness is a whole separate matter.

[Chief Rum]

Should I be upset about this Katie Shiendle thing? Logically, it appears I should be, but the only channel I see really covering it is Fox News and I inherently don't trust them.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Straw man. That question was about Iran's trustworthiness.

Our lack of trustworthiness is a whole separate matter.

Not really. The issue of trust goes both ways. Both sides are buying into the notion that the other side can finally be trusted this time. The faith that is being put into the process by Iran is actually a decent sign.

I'm not saying its akin to it, but similarly to Reagan and Gorbachev in Reykjavik, the other side being willing to trust you, allows one to trust them more fully.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not really. The issue of trust goes both ways. Both sides are buying into the notion that the other side can finally be trusted this time. The faith that is being put into the process by Iran is actually a decent sign.

I'm not saying its akin to it, but similarly to Reagan and Gorbachev in Reykjavik, the other side being willing to trust you, allows one to trust them more fully.

I agree if the discussion is trust as a whole. But it wasn't. It was a poll on whether Americans trust Iran. Different discussion.

[ISiddiqui]

Can't view that in a vacuum, IMO.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Can't view that in a vacuum, IMO.

Again, I tend to agree, but the discussion point was a poll of Americans on whether they trust Iran in this deal. Bringing up trust in America is a straw man that has nothing to do with that discussion. I suspect you bring it up because an Iran peace deal is a coup for Obama's foreign policy and you lean left and so you want Obama to be seen as successful.

That's fine and all, but just calling it what it is.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Again, I tend to agree, but the discussion point was a poll of Americans on whether they trust Iran in this deal. Bringing up trust in America is a straw man that has nothing to do with that discussion. I suspect you bring it up because an Iran peace deal is a coup for Obama's foreign policy and you lean left and so you want Obama to be seen as successful.

That's fine and all, but just calling it what it is.

And this is just being overly pedantic for no reason. Obviously I'm debating whether or not Americans feel they can trust Iran is relevant to anything. Basically, who cares.

[Solecismic]

What are we trusting Iran to do? They already said they want to destroy Israel. They openly train and fund Hezbollah. The mullahs have already said the military sites are off-limits. I trust them at their word.

The question is more why make an agreement where one side gets everything it wants and the other side gets nothing? Especially when the side asking for more is calling for your death after it takes care of Israel.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The question is more why make an agreement where one side gets everything it wants and the other side gets nothing? Especially when the side asking for more is calling for your death after it takes care of Israel.

Well to be fair Iran only calls for the peaceful elimination of Israel, or something.