i'd be on the first bus to san diego, via vancouver. fuck winter.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/should-california-oregon-and-washington-join-canada-calexit-talk-envelops-west-coast/
Friday, February 3, 2017
In court, Washington solicitor general Noah Purcell called the White
House’s arguments “frightening”, arguing that they cloaked everything
under a veil of national security concerns. The government had argued,
he said: “If the president says, ‘I’m doing this for national security’,
then the court cannot review that that’s a reasonable reason. Our view
is that’s not the law.”
it probably actually is the law, though. again....canadian....
...but, the white house is probably right that it can't review why, but only how.
so, if the state showed up and said "you can't do this because it's not really for national security", then that's probably not going to hold up on appeal. the state would have to show up and say "what you're doing does not logically follow from the reasons you're citing." - that the ban will not succeed in keeping anybody safer. see, it's not that this is wrong, it's that it's hard to make the argument in court in a way that is powerful enough to overturn the executive branch on a point of fact. the discussion isn't really about facts. so, it's one thing to suggest it's specious, it's another to say it's wrong. how can a judge state that with force? again: this is where the importance of the sunset clause comes in.
it doesn't seem to me that this argument is going to hold. they could pick up another argument, mind you.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/trump-travel-ban-temporarily-blocked-nationwide
it probably actually is the law, though. again....canadian....
...but, the white house is probably right that it can't review why, but only how.
so, if the state showed up and said "you can't do this because it's not really for national security", then that's probably not going to hold up on appeal. the state would have to show up and say "what you're doing does not logically follow from the reasons you're citing." - that the ban will not succeed in keeping anybody safer. see, it's not that this is wrong, it's that it's hard to make the argument in court in a way that is powerful enough to overturn the executive branch on a point of fact. the discussion isn't really about facts. so, it's one thing to suggest it's specious, it's another to say it's wrong. how can a judge state that with force? again: this is where the importance of the sunset clause comes in.
it doesn't seem to me that this argument is going to hold. they could pick up another argument, mind you.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/trump-travel-ban-temporarily-blocked-nationwide
at
23:27
Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer
on the "litany of harms” suffered by Washington state’s universities,
and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001
attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.
Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”
this is actually a pretty ballsy ruling, though, that is likely to get dissected over the next few days. again, i'm in canada, but for a judge to interpret the case this deeply would be considered "activist", even by liberals. i don't know what the american precedents are, but this is probably stretching them - to put it lightly.
but, the judge might not argue with me, either. he might be fully transparent in stating that his ruling is activist and political. and, while you might agree with him, you should be uneasy with the scenario - even if you don't blame him.
i posted the canadian test. what it needs to do is determine a rational connection between what the executive branch orders and the policy put in place. it sounds like that's what he's doing, here. but, it can't question whether the orders of the executive branch are justified, as that would be assuming the role of the executive branch and breaking the separation of powers.
as mentioned, desperate situations call for desperate actions. and, i might argue that you'd have to be kind of clueless to reject critical legal theory in 2017. but, fighting alternative facts with politicized rulings is opening up somewhat of a pandora's box that could end pretty brutally...
it's easier to talk about slippery slopes from a distance than to actually react, though. there's probably not an ideal ruling, here.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15I1CM
Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”
this is actually a pretty ballsy ruling, though, that is likely to get dissected over the next few days. again, i'm in canada, but for a judge to interpret the case this deeply would be considered "activist", even by liberals. i don't know what the american precedents are, but this is probably stretching them - to put it lightly.
but, the judge might not argue with me, either. he might be fully transparent in stating that his ruling is activist and political. and, while you might agree with him, you should be uneasy with the scenario - even if you don't blame him.
i posted the canadian test. what it needs to do is determine a rational connection between what the executive branch orders and the policy put in place. it sounds like that's what he's doing, here. but, it can't question whether the orders of the executive branch are justified, as that would be assuming the role of the executive branch and breaking the separation of powers.
as mentioned, desperate situations call for desperate actions. and, i might argue that you'd have to be kind of clueless to reject critical legal theory in 2017. but, fighting alternative facts with politicized rulings is opening up somewhat of a pandora's box that could end pretty brutally...
it's easier to talk about slippery slopes from a distance than to actually react, though. there's probably not an ideal ruling, here.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15I1CM
at
22:51
you know, you almost want to scrounge together a little empathy.
it's the coldest day of the year, and instead of checking the seals on the windows and setting the furnace up an extra degree, my upstairs neighbour is stomping around in a fit, ensuring that his daughter turns the heat off, under the fear that the tenants around him might force him to break a sweat.
what enforces such a morbid fear of sweat in a grown man, beyond the age of 60? was he teased as a child because of his smell? is that the cause of his morbid obesity - a fear of smelling of sweat?
if only he could put as much effort into losing weight as he does into preventing himself from breaking a sweat....
-10 C = 14 F.
and, yet the heat remains off. and i am forced to open my own windows to clear the pool of gas that has resulted from some leak, or some bad wiring, and that is correlated with and seemingly caused by his refusal to turn on the furnace.
that furnace was newly installed in 2014, btw. if it were up to him, he'd never use it at all. why spend the money? and why force me to suffer the externalities?
i'd be happy to heat his unit for him, if he'd like to disconnect the gas permanently. as it is, i have no option but to try and freeze him out until he turns his furnace on.
existence remains inherently absurd. and i can only continue to laugh...
it's the coldest day of the year, and instead of checking the seals on the windows and setting the furnace up an extra degree, my upstairs neighbour is stomping around in a fit, ensuring that his daughter turns the heat off, under the fear that the tenants around him might force him to break a sweat.
what enforces such a morbid fear of sweat in a grown man, beyond the age of 60? was he teased as a child because of his smell? is that the cause of his morbid obesity - a fear of smelling of sweat?
if only he could put as much effort into losing weight as he does into preventing himself from breaking a sweat....
-10 C = 14 F.
and, yet the heat remains off. and i am forced to open my own windows to clear the pool of gas that has resulted from some leak, or some bad wiring, and that is correlated with and seemingly caused by his refusal to turn on the furnace.
that furnace was newly installed in 2014, btw. if it were up to him, he'd never use it at all. why spend the money? and why force me to suffer the externalities?
i'd be happy to heat his unit for him, if he'd like to disconnect the gas permanently. as it is, i have no option but to try and freeze him out until he turns his furnace on.
existence remains inherently absurd. and i can only continue to laugh...
at
20:58
maybe he can call his buddy vlad and get him to do a swap: russia pulls out of iran, if nato pulls out of latvia?
otherwise, i'd say that the towelheads got ya, don. not much you can do.
tell your party that they shouldda thought about that before they sent victoria nuland in to destabilize ukraine, in order to destabilize obama.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-iran-missiles-idUSKCN12D0Z2
otherwise, i'd say that the towelheads got ya, don. not much you can do.
tell your party that they shouldda thought about that before they sent victoria nuland in to destabilize ukraine, in order to destabilize obama.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-iran-missiles-idUSKCN12D0Z2
at
19:50
am i going to get over the border on sunday?
well, i'm going to have to figure this out eventually, right?
there's no actual reason for them to hold me, but we'll have to figure out whether we're dealing with logic or not the hard way....
well, i'm going to have to figure this out eventually, right?
there's no actual reason for them to hold me, but we'll have to figure out whether we're dealing with logic or not the hard way....
at
15:36
iran is going to be one of the files that demonstrates just how obvious it is that trump really does not understand what he's doing.
the reason that obama went out of his way to build a sanctions regime - that included china, russia and india - is that unilateral sanctions on iran are merely a punitive measure on american capital. sanctions have absolutely no use as an incentive if the iranians can just trade with the other countries.
unfortunately, obama screwed the whole thing up, anyways, with his sanctions on russia. as soon as obama put sanctions on the russians, the russians removed their sanctions on the iranians. why would the chinese and indians put their own capital at a disadvantage, if the russians are trading with them? and, this is the reason that the iran deal exists as it does - because the whole regime was about to collapse, as a consequence of a foolish decision to put sanctions on moscow at the worst possible time. it was what they got, or nothing at all. and, it was largely a face-saving mechanism.
trump can wave his cock around all he wants, but he has no meaningful leverage so long as the sanctions are unilateral - and no chance of rebuilding a sanctions regime so long as he remains antagonistic towards china.
the iranians are correct to laugh at him.
the reason that obama went out of his way to build a sanctions regime - that included china, russia and india - is that unilateral sanctions on iran are merely a punitive measure on american capital. sanctions have absolutely no use as an incentive if the iranians can just trade with the other countries.
unfortunately, obama screwed the whole thing up, anyways, with his sanctions on russia. as soon as obama put sanctions on the russians, the russians removed their sanctions on the iranians. why would the chinese and indians put their own capital at a disadvantage, if the russians are trading with them? and, this is the reason that the iran deal exists as it does - because the whole regime was about to collapse, as a consequence of a foolish decision to put sanctions on moscow at the worst possible time. it was what they got, or nothing at all. and, it was largely a face-saving mechanism.
trump can wave his cock around all he wants, but he has no meaningful leverage so long as the sanctions are unilateral - and no chance of rebuilding a sanctions regime so long as he remains antagonistic towards china.
the iranians are correct to laugh at him.
at
15:27
"i'm sorry mr. speaker, but we could not possibly pass this legislation. it is in our self-interest. what would jesus say? we will only pass legislation that is in the interest of the opposition. after all, that is what we would want them to do."
you can feel them laughing with their eyes. mouths closed. heads down. in a roaring fit of internalized cackling...
fools.
they're fools....
you can feel them laughing with their eyes. mouths closed. heads down. in a roaring fit of internalized cackling...
fools.
they're fools....
at
13:11
it is not "good governance" to legislate (or fail to legislate, as it may be) in the interests of your opponents.
it is irrational.
....or it is treasonous.
i'm actually going to go with irrational, first and foremost. 80% irrational, 20% treasonous...
it is irrational.
....or it is treasonous.
i'm actually going to go with irrational, first and foremost. 80% irrational, 20% treasonous...
at
12:46
what the liberals are basically saying is this.
"given that it appears that all of the parties are going to align with the system that they perceive as maximizing their own interests, we are going to ignore our own voters and choose the system that is in the best interests of the conservative party."
"given that it appears that all of the parties are going to align with the system that they perceive as maximizing their own interests, we are going to ignore our own voters and choose the system that is in the best interests of the conservative party."
at
12:38
no - and that's fine, and i agree. this is one of the reasons i voted for the liberals, and did not vote for the ndp: i support ranked ballots, and oppose proportional representation and largely for these reasons.
but, it doesn't answer why they pulled the plug on the ranked ballots, which is the only option that was ever seriously on the table. and, it doesn't answer questions around what other party positions are up for debate.
my position is this: there are a handful of reasons why i voted liberal. the promise to bring in ranked ballots was one of them. so, if there were x reasons then there are now x-1 reasons and i am that much less likely to vote for them again.
the thing is that there aren't x-1 reasons, though. there are x-n reasons. and, n--->x.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-reform-promise-referendum-1.3963533
but, it doesn't answer why they pulled the plug on the ranked ballots, which is the only option that was ever seriously on the table. and, it doesn't answer questions around what other party positions are up for debate.
my position is this: there are a handful of reasons why i voted liberal. the promise to bring in ranked ballots was one of them. so, if there were x reasons then there are now x-1 reasons and i am that much less likely to vote for them again.
the thing is that there aren't x-1 reasons, though. there are x-n reasons. and, n--->x.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-reform-promise-referendum-1.3963533
at
12:14
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)