491–500 of 568 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount of fentanyl (just fent) siezed through April of this year since January was enough to kill 700,000 people. I guess you can disbelieve the story that car part vsndors were trafficking fentanyl, but it is a problem.
Enough to kill is a meaningless metric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The policies you mention don’t target particular countries, and this is where the difference lies in my opinion. The part of the policies which is countries specific is in fact foreign policy.
By that logic, a president wanting to tariff the whole world could just specify some small country as not included, and then it be foreign policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Three of the post senior citizen Democratic representatives died in office None of those deaths are in swing districts. Fetterman was always a right of center politician, the only reason he isn't a Republican is that the Republicans simply do not do moderates anymore.
But the Dems are still down three votes until those seats are filled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Trump's tariffs. Republican tariffs, they're complicit. Literally every single Republican in the House voted to shield Trump's "national emergency" [0] from being challenged as invalid. [0] The National Emergency of... a relatively small amount of fentanyl seized at the Canadian border.
The amount of fentanyl (just fent) siezed through April of this year since January was enough to kill 700,000 people. I guess you can disbelieve the story that car part vsndors were trafficking fentanyl, but it is a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Used to be a time when Congress made foreign policy. Oh, how fast they grow up... (sheds tear)
Honestly I'm not sure that was ever true, but it is funny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it requires the courts to agree - just that there's a burden or disadvantage and that it's in the "public interest" which seems like a pretty low bar to make up a story that sounds plausible. i think the idea that a trade deficit is a disadvantage is kinda brain dead, but it's plausible sounding enough to argue in court. throw in unequal tariff rates and it seems like an easier win than the IEEPA's emer…
> I don't think it requires the courts to agree This is misunderstanding civics. Laws are not algorithms. All laws must be interpreted. The government organ responsible for interpreting laws is the judiciary, definitionally. It's not like there's a condition in a law saying "get the courts to agree". It's that there is a disagreement (among parties with standing) about what the law means . And so they fight about it…
IMO that's being awfully generous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount of fentanyl (just fent) siezed through April of this year since January was enough to kill 700,000 people. I guess you can disbelieve the story that car part vsndors were trafficking fentanyl, but it is a problem.
Enough to kill is a meaningless metric.
Yet it would be beyond stupid to claim that each person stopped at the border "saved" 20 Americans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a conservative talking point to justify stripping Congress of power. The whole reason Chevron came into existence is because it's impossible for Congress to pass explicit regulations for every little thing as soon as it's needed. So agencies were instead given broad legislative mandates like "keep the water clean" or "manage fish stocks" because it was impossible to enumerate every circumstance. So for 40 yea…
>> The whole reason Chevron came into existence is because it's impossible for Congress to pass explicit regulations for every little thing as soon as it's needed. So agencies were instead given broad legislative mandates like "keep the water clean" or "manage fish stocks" because it was impossible to enumerate every circumstance. This misunderstands Chevron and the effect of its abandonment. Chevron stood for the pr…
But the real problem comes in because 40 years of laws were written both both parties with Chevron deference in mind. Not only did Congress not take action to overrule Chevron, consistently for 40 years, they intentionally wrote ambiguous statutes to give agency's the power to interpret those statutes, mostly because enumerating every possible circumstance was impossible.
Take managing fish stocks. What fish stocks? When should fishing seasons be? What's the inspection mechanism? How are licenses and quotas issues? How are they enforced? How should all this be reported to the public, Congress and the president? What about fish stocks that border international waters? How should they be managed?
Chevron acknowledged what was already happening: it was impossible to write legislation that way. Congress didn't have the bandwidth to initially write it, let alone maintain it as circumstances change.
The Supreme Court (rightly) recognized that without Chevron deference it would be impossible to an agency manage anything because any ambiguities or any simply unofreseen gaps would be used to neuter the agency in the courts. It made it impossible to have such agencies and that's the whole point of overturning Chevron. The very wealthy don't want Fedearl agencies. The whole thing is a libertarian wet dream and over the coming years we'll see the consequences as the same people poison the water supply and the food supply, overfish alal fishing stocks, crash the economy through unregulated financial markets and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This idea that the president has unrestricted ability to set foreign policy is an invention of this particular administration. In truth, powers are split between the executive and legislative branches [1]. Most notably, only Congress can declare war, which has been a real sticking point in the last century and why, for example, the Korean War wasn't technically a war (it was a "police action") and why the Vietnam War…
The President and the courts didn't neuter Congress. Congress neutered itself. Over the past several decades, Congress has been less and less able to pass legislation, less and less able to work with itself, eventually even unable to pass a budget (which is their most fundamental, basic duty). How many years of the last decade has Congress passed a budget? That would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. Congress is br…