The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's • Hacker News Board

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#81

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 2:47 PM UTC

ctlby wrote: post #74

setpatchaddress wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama made clear as early as the 2008 primaries that he wasn't going to be very good on civil liberties. (But he didn't have to be this bad.) What valid concerns did Republicans have during the past eight years? Do tell. I've not heard of a single one. Trump is the inevitable outcome of 50 years of racist, belligerent fear mongering and bad-faith governance on the part of the Republicans. You can draw a straight line…

They're on point about his general lawlessness. It started with the Chrysler bailout (almost as soon as he walked into office!), and it continues to this day with e.g. the retroactive provisions in his latest anti-inversion proposal. > Trump is the inevitable outcome of 50 years of racist, belligerent fear mongering Trump is the inevitable outcome of eight years of liberal grievance peddling. His supporters are just…

[deleted]

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#82

Post by naasking » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 3:06 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #34

awinter-py wrote: post #2

I was really hoping that barack would be the con-law president. If uchicago hasn't moved down in the rankings because their prof. emeritus is so bad at 'rule of law in practice', there's something wrong with the ranking system. It's shocking to hear a guy who was a professional legal theorist argue that something is legal based on the fact that he ordered the DOJ to write a memo.

It's not clear to me that narrow interpretations of the 4th amendment are more faithful to the Constitution than broad ones. It's true that the 4th amendment was put in the Constitution to provide a protection against warrantless searches of peoples' homes. At the same time, one of the motivating reasons for creating the Constitution as a whole was to create a powerful executive with broad authority to react to milit…

> At the same time, one of the motivating reasons for creating the Constitution as a whole was to create a powerful executive with broad authority to react to military threats, both external and internal. Why is it more faithful to the Constitution to give more weight to the 4th amendment and less weight to the President's broad powers as to national security?

The justification for warrantless dragnet surveillance is to stop terrorists. The damage terrorists cause is literally negligeable when judged by your argument. If the Constitution was designed to react to military threats, terrorism is not a threat. You're more likely to die slipping in the shower than get killed by a terrorist, which is not the case when at war with another nation.

And this doesn't even touch on whether dragnet surveillance is actually effective (which it can't be, even in principle). As such, the justification for dragnet surveillance is so thin it's comical.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#83

Post by Agustus » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 3:08 PM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #58

Agustus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When he was elected, I was happy, perhaps he could enact the changes that needed to be made to reign in some of the spying, ridiculous defense contracts, and other items. I based this on the "not red or blue country" speech at the DNC convention. That hope passed quickly when he made the "I won" comment to the Republicans instead of just assuaging or listening to their now valid concerns. I would argue that the obstr…

> The Democrat congress and President would have been able to hold the majority if they had not stirred up the hornet's nest of populism from the right through the healthcare act fiasco. Yeah. The Democrats stirred up populism from the Right by enacting a policy solution that closely followed health care policy solutions supported at one time by the Heritage Foundation and the 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate.…

This analysis demonstrates how people just take sound bites, package them, and then spout it out in arguments.

The Democrats party pushed forward on healthcare reform. The tide was moving that something had to be done and there was movement to look at this, however, there were many different policies being proposed; President Obama was lying when he said "No one" has suggested other options, I know for a fact that I sent him an e-mail containing alternatives to those he was going for.

Romneycare was not liked within the Republican party, the concepts of what it took to enact, what it required to run, and what it asked of its populace were not well received. So, just because he was the one who tried it, does not mean that the entirety of the Republican party supported it.

So, yes, the Democrats stirred the opposing party's populist sentiment through many policy decisions that affected them. The Republican party members argued that the healthcare reform proposed by the Democrat party was ridiculous, would raise rates, and affect those who were independent business owners. As we sit here, rates are higher, the reforms are not occurring, and independent business owners are downgrading employees left and right (good pun Agustus) from full-time to part-time.

Finally, it's all politics. Joe Biden was in the same position on another supreme court nominee and did the same thing. It is all political. The media reports that he is a centrist, but based on my reviews of his opinions, he is left leaning with a few moments of conservatism; which is the optics President Obama wants to force a stand-off with the parties.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#84

Post by Agustus » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 3:12 PM UTC

actsasbuffoon wrote: post #37

CWuestefeld wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This probably is way way off-topic, but.... While on the face you seem to be decrying the polar tribalism that characterizes contemporary politics, you are using that very tribalism to make your argument. But the fact that some folks who label themselves "conservative" have advocated something does not obligate all people, or even any other people, who also label themselves "conservative", to also support it. Or will…

I appreciate the nuance of your argument. It's a good point in general, and I personally don't fit cleanly into any existing party. That said, I think we can reasonably propose that most of the sound and fury over the ACA was political theater. Mitt Romney wasn't decried when he passed a nearly identical law in Massachussetts. In fact, the RNC chose Romney to run against Obama in 2012, so it clearly didn't hurt him m…

RomneyCare was not popular with the rest of the country's Republican party. Just because he had one thing on his record that would be contradictory to that of the current party does not mean all of his talking points are not valid.

Romney was spot on about Russia being a concern in the coming months and years.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#85

Post by Agustus » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 3:20 PM UTC

setpatchaddress wrote: post #27

Agustus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When he was elected, I was happy, perhaps he could enact the changes that needed to be made to reign in some of the spying, ridiculous defense contracts, and other items. I based this on the "not red or blue country" speech at the DNC convention. That hope passed quickly when he made the "I won" comment to the Republicans instead of just assuaging or listening to their now valid concerns. I would argue that the obstr…

Obama made clear as early as the 2008 primaries that he wasn't going to be very good on civil liberties. (But he didn't have to be this bad.) What valid concerns did Republicans have during the past eight years? Do tell. I've not heard of a single one. Trump is the inevitable outcome of 50 years of racist, belligerent fear mongering and bad-faith governance on the part of the Republicans. You can draw a straight line…

1. The healthcare law will increase costs. Check that with where the premiums were at prior to implementation and then after.

2. Russia is a concern. Check that against our attempts at "reset."

3. Iran will not adhere to the document they signed with the Nuclear Act. Check that with the current ballistics tests.

I could go on, however, please do tell me what current racist governance the Republicans are engaging in. How far into the echo chamber are you that you believe this, please point to what actual racist policies Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush have implemented?

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#86

Post by wwweston » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

Agustus wrote: post #83

wwweston wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Democrat congress and President would have been able to hold the majority if they had not stirred up the hornet's nest of populism from the right through the healthcare act fiasco. Yeah. The Democrats stirred up populism from the Right by enacting a policy solution that closely followed health care policy solutions supported at one time by the Heritage Foundation and the 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate.…

This analysis demonstrates how people just take sound bites, package them, and then spout it out in arguments. The Democrats party pushed forward on healthcare reform. The tide was moving that something had to be done and there was movement to look at this, however, there were many different policies being proposed; President Obama was lying when he said "No one" has suggested other options, I know for a fact that I…

> President Obama was lying when he said "No one" has suggested other options, I know for a fact that I sent him an e-mail containing alternatives to those he was going for.

If you're suggesting that Obama has at any point contended that there were no other policy alternatives besides what ended up in the PP/ACA, I don't know what to tell you. Feel free to cite the statement you're sure he was lying about, though, I'm sure it will pair well with your own statement about the problem of people taking sound bites and packaging them.

Sadly, I do think it's likely Obama ignored your personal email containing our nation's policy solutions.

> just because [Romney] was the one who tried it, does not mean that the entirety of the Republican party supported it.

Sure, I don't expect the entirety of the Republican party to have supported it; the entirety of the Democratic party didn't. And among those that did there are many who'd be the first to tell you they think it could be improved (including Obama himself).

Given past endorsement and even adoption from some Republican segments with conservative bona fides any reasonable person would have expected some support, if the Republican party were actually doing policy at all rather than pure theater.

> The Republican party members argued that the healthcare reform proposed by the Democrat party was ridiculous, would raise rates, and affect those who were independent business owners.

The Republican party also argued that it would create government death panels, provide free care for all illegal immigrants, micromanage doctors, bring on a totalitarian state, that it was too big/too complicated, would bankrupt/enrich private insurers, bankrupt the country, etc etc.

Many arguments were made about the reform. Very few of those that took place in the public sphere were in any way about the actual policy.

Most of yours aren't, either. Nor is it clear that your perception of what is actually happening is accurate:

> As we sit here, rates are higher

Increasing rates have been a fact of life in the insurance market for decades. All PP/ACA had to do in order to be an improvement was slow down the rate of increase:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/11/12/388...

> the reforms are not occurring

Since I'm personally acquainted with people who now have access to insurance and care, I think it's safe to call this false on that basis alone.

Or we could talk about how the socialists at Forbes magazine reported that the cost curve was already starting to bend circa 2013:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-su...

> independent business owners are downgrading employees left and right (good pun Agustus) from full-time to part-time.

"Are Republicans right that employers are capping workers’ hours to avoid offering health insurance? The evidence suggests the answer is 'yes,' although the number of workers affected is fairly small."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-c...

Again, there are people among the Democrats (Obama included) who'd be the first to admit that PP/ACA was the legislation they could get passed back in 2010 rather than ideal. There have been actual invitations to revisit the policy and see if we could improve on some of the known flaws, including this one.

> Finally, it's all politics. Joe Biden was in the same position on another supreme court nominee and did the same thing.

Describe, exactly, what you think "the same thing" is.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#87

Post by rayiner » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #82

rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me that narrow interpretations of the 4th amendment are more faithful to the Constitution than broad ones. It's true that the 4th amendment was put in the Constitution to provide a protection against warrantless searches of peoples' homes. At the same time, one of the motivating reasons for creating the Constitution as a whole was to create a powerful executive with broad authority to react to milit…

> At the same time, one of the motivating reasons for creating the Constitution as a whole was to create a powerful executive with broad authority to react to military threats, both external and internal. Why is it more faithful to the Constitution to give more weight to the 4th amendment and less weight to the President's broad powers as to national security? The justification for warrantless dragnet surveillance is…

People do not think that accidental deaths are comparable to intentional killings. We have elaborate mechanisms to distinguish the two because our fundamental outlook is that one is much more serious than the other.

Besides that, it's almost certainly the case that terrorism has resulted in more deaths than has warrantless dragnet surveillance of cross-border traffic.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#88

Post by extra88 » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

OliverJones wrote: post #75

In the article, Mr. Toomey wrote this: "The government assumes that any communication entering or leaving the country has a foreigner on one end — and thus is eligible for warrantless searching. As the new Brennan Center report makes clear, the implications of this position are especially dire given the global structure of the Internet, where even Americans’ domestic communications may be routed or stored abroad with…

> Any communication between two non-US residents that happens to transit the US is also subject to surveillance.

Of course but we (USians) don't care, spying on everyone else is the NSA's job and every country does it. I'm more concerned about these issues than the average USian but even I don't care much about applying things like the 4th Amendment to non-USians who are physically outside the country. Well, I don't care about it from a justice perspective, I do care about possible consequences like the Internet becoming balkanized.

> Is there some reason the US security apparatus can't legislate in public?

Why would they, how would it benefit them? Their answer would be that it's critical that they keep secret their "sources and methods," so the bad guys don't know what they're doing and also what they're not doing, whether it's because they don't have the capability or they're legally restricted from doing it.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#89

Post by criley2 » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 8:20 PM UTC

rashkov wrote: post #57

criley2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"if they had not stirred up the hornet's nest of populism from the right through the healthcare act fiasco" To blame the President for this is ridiculous. Our centrist President promoted a conservative think-tank idea battle tested in the laboratory of a large state, and was ridiculed as a marxist and a communist who was on the level of stalin. No hyperbole, these very attacks and words have become so common in cons…

Well written, thanks. There was a time when the ACA was about a single payer healthcare system. Wouldn't that better explain the red scare accusations of socialism?

> There was a time when the ACA was about a single payer healthcare system.

I don't think there was ever a time when the ACA was about single payer.

I think you're confusing it with a separate alternative bill progressives championed during the healthcare reform period that we called the Medicare for All Act (H.R.676 - United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act.

We pushed hard for our vision of a national health care system and just about all progressives in Congress agreed with nearly 100 co-sponsors, but ultimately the centrist democrats and their new centrist President chose a path of "compromise" with conservatives who did not have any interest in compromise.

It makes me sad. If conservatives were going to wage a scorched earth red scare propaganda war against any health care reform, why not ACTUALLY achieve a national health care system and give their red scare complaints merit?

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#90

Post by criley2 » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 8:21 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #70

rashkov wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well written, thanks. There was a time when the ACA was about a single payer healthcare system. Wouldn't that better explain the red scare accusations of socialism?

Maybe if that single payer system weren't designed (at every step of the way) to enable competition by private industry.

? The Medicare for All bill from 2008 and its current iteration in 2015, the primary and most prominent push for national healthcare, explicitly bans all private institutions from participating unless they are non-profits. Only public and non-profits are allowed to participate.