Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sen Feinstein: Why I changed my mind about Cali’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

sacbee.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Sen Feinstein: Why I changed my mind about Cali’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

#31

Post by twelve40 »

mwint wrote: post #17
quantified wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting downvoted, but the electricity shortfall would need to be made up for somehow. I'm in no way happy about nuclear because it's pretty clear humans don't know how to behave in large enough groups over long enough periods. But Californians as a whole can't even cut back on watering their lawns, certainly won't cut back on AC or ice cubes for their drinks, or industrial uses, and the climate change aspects…

Side topic, are ice cubes for drinks a significant use of power?

No they are not. Just like watering the lawns is not a significant number relative to the rest - the entire landscape irrigation usage in CA amounts to less than 5%, so if all lawns got instantly destroyed tomorrow, it would barely move the needle.

Re: Sen Feinstein: Why I changed my mind about Cali’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

#32

Post by aksss »

jmyeet wrote: post #28
aksss wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “this Supreme Court” Assuming you mean Citizens United, decided twelve years ago, the Court has had a nearly 50% turnover since then. It was still “the Robert’s Court” but hardly “this Court”. But the current Court would likely hold a majority for same conclusion of CU - that the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation, non-profit organization or labor union from making an "electioneer…

It's still the Roberts Supreme Court. Some of the actors may have changed (eg RBG, Scalia) but do you really think the current makeup of the court would rule otherwise if that case was decided today?

Not just some, 4 of 9 have turned over and Beyer’s replacement pre-appointed, oddly enough. The balance has also shifted. It’s a different Court than it was twelve years ago, and lazy to conflate them regardless of whether you think the result would be the same.

To that point, need I remind that the case was decided unanimously, with five dissenting only in part? Ginsburg, Steven’s, Sotomayor, Beyer, and Thomas had disagreement in how to reach the end result, but signed on for the end result. It’s not hard to understand why:

Fundamentally, the idea of banning a book critical of Hillary Clinton in the run up to an election or primary is a bit hard to swallow as benefitting any but the Hillary Clinton’s of the world.

Evidently, how you rationalize banning it was arguably worse in principle than how you rationalize allowing it.

Re: Sen Feinstein: Why I changed my mind about Cali’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

#33

Post by gwbrooks »

jmyeet wrote: post #10

Senator Feinstein ran for reelection at aged 85. A full term in the Senate is 6 years. So if she didn't die in that time (which is a very real possibility at her age) then she would be 91 at the end of her term. That's... ridiculous. She seems to be in clear mental decline now, so much so that she stepped down (some say was removed) from the senate Judiciary committee [1]. So what allowed her to get renominated? Simp…

Citizens United, whether you agree with it or not, builds on several previous SCOTUS rulings around campaign finance.

To suggest that the rules (or lack thereof) completely changed with that ruling is to misunderstand the history of campaign-finance law over the past ~50 years.

Re: Sen Feinstein: Why I changed my mind about Cali’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

#34

Post by throwawaymanbot »

jmyeet wrote: post #10

Senator Feinstein ran for reelection at aged 85. A full term in the Senate is 6 years. So if she didn't die in that time (which is a very real possibility at her age) then she would be 91 at the end of her term. That's... ridiculous. She seems to be in clear mental decline now, so much so that she stepped down (some say was removed) from the senate Judiciary committee [1]. So what allowed her to get renominated? Simp…

No post body was provided.

Re: Sen Feinstein: Why I changed my mind about Cali’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

#35

Post by quantified »

mwint wrote: post #17
quantified wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting downvoted, but the electricity shortfall would need to be made up for somehow. I'm in no way happy about nuclear because it's pretty clear humans don't know how to behave in large enough groups over long enough periods. But Californians as a whole can't even cut back on watering their lawns, certainly won't cut back on AC or ice cubes for their drinks, or industrial uses, and the climate change aspects…

Side topic, are ice cubes for drinks a significant use of power?

No, lots of things are insignificant. My point is really that few are interested in doing anything at all except consume and say that other uses should be cut back before their own.

Re: Sen Feinstein: Why I changed my mind about Cali’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

#36

Post by cyanydeez »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #22
jmyeet wrote: post #10

Senator Feinstein ran for reelection at aged 85. A full term in the Senate is 6 years. So if she didn't die in that time (which is a very real possibility at her age) then she would be 91 at the end of her term. That's... ridiculous. She seems to be in clear mental decline now, so much so that she stepped down (some say was removed) from the senate Judiciary committee [1]. So what allowed her to get renominated? Simp…

Wish there was a good solution to the problem of those in mental decline keeping hold of a political office. I don't like the idea of strict age limits since different people age at different rates. Any sort of competency test is likely to end up being gamed by one side or the other. Ultimately it is up to the voters in the electing jurisdiction to decide. Much of the problem in the Senate and House seems to stem fro…

Honestly, just use ranked choice voting. The public functions just fine when the means of democracy aren't shoved inside binary choices.

Re: Sen Feinstein: Why I changed my mind about Cali’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

#37

Post by throwaway0a5e »

jmyeet wrote: post #10

Senator Feinstein ran for reelection at aged 85. A full term in the Senate is 6 years. So if she didn't die in that time (which is a very real possibility at her age) then she would be 91 at the end of her term. That's... ridiculous. She seems to be in clear mental decline now, so much so that she stepped down (some say was removed) from the senate Judiciary committee [1]. So what allowed her to get renominated? Simp…

>So what allowed her to get renominated? Simple she was good at the most important thing for a large blue state Democratic Senator: fundraising. For whatever reason, she was a massive rainmaker. You have to be to be nominated as a Demorat for Senate in California. kamala Harris was too. It's pretty much how she rose to being VP now.

She's been in a position of power within the CA portion of the party for so long she'd be a rainmaker even if she was a complete dolt (which she is, IMO).

Re: Sen Feinstein: Why I changed my mind about Cali’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

#38

Post by yellowapple »

And what's stopping her from changing her mind again? It's great that she's finally against further kneecapping California's non-carbon-emitting energy, but how long until the fossil fuel lobbyists pay her to parrot their anti-nuclear bullshit again?

Re: Sen Feinstein: Why I changed my mind about Cali’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

#39

Post by chipsa »

jmyeet wrote: post #30
chipsa wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money !== speech, but money is essential to speech. I can say things, but if people can't hear me, because I can't spend the money to get that speech out, does it really matter? The other thing I hear a lot is: corporations aren't people! But they're made of people. I want the EFF and ACLU and SAF and Humane Society to be able to advocate on my behalf. That's why I give them money.

Except that what we've done is not given the ability of groups of people to be heard per se, we've given disproportionately powerful voices to the wealthy and allowed corporations to dictate policy to an extent that almost no individual ever could.

The government argument in the case was: there is no limits to the government's power with respect to corporate speech during an election.

> During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring an author to write a political book.

Given that, is it an surprise that the Supreme Court found that it conflicted with the First Amendment?

Post reply on HN