Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Race hatred directed toward blacks here is a very different thing, for reasons I don't think I need to explain.

Hatred of Muslims here is indistinguishable from that expressed in Europe. In both cases, natives fear radicals and believe Muslims do not assimilate well.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

most of the immigrants, especially the muslims, impacted in Europe are African. what i know of race hate in europe is that it isn't all that different from here, as directed. the French hate African blacks but think american blacks are fine. But I was asking about US immigration response, not whether the blight of slavery raises issues about African Americans that Europe doesn't have.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

You've got to be joking. The Rs have completely abandoned free trade. One of my trumpster relatives at the beach (and, by the way, I hid out at work some of the week to avoid dealing with them - had lunch in town most days with sane people...) last week was going on and on about how exciting it was that we can win a trade war, how our big trade deficit with China gives us lots of leverage, it may hurt a few people but would benefit everyone overall....

The Republicans aren't coming back to free trade. That ship has sailed (after paying tariffs, of course).

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I don't see any EU countries making efforts to find and remove people who have been living there for years. Maybe it's happening in places like Poland and Hungary where the domestic politics are different. OTOH, in the UK you have some parallel with people (especially citizens of other EU countries) running into obstacles with the Home Office, but even so the Home Office is nothing like ICE. There is a cruelty for the sake of cruelty here that I don't see there.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I had an unusual and unfortunate exposure to CNBC yesterday during which a panel mostly agreed we were "winning" a trade war with China.

People are stupid.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

The Dominican Republic seems to be where this country goes next when it comes to immigration policy. Miller would institute their policies now if that racist little shit could.

But at least Hillary didn't get to name a Supreme Court Justice.

TM

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I've heard there would be no real difference between who she'd have nominated and Trump's pick?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

No substantive differences. Maybe a bit of difference in areas like, say, privacy rights or due process, but Sebby don't care.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I wonder how that works with a new administration- like the line workers ("agents?") are still there from Obama's time. My little gov agency doesn't really change day to day because the same people are making the same decisions- there may be some high level emphasis change, but you'd be hard pressed to see it.

But ICE: here you were working to do a job you thought good and necessary going back for a few decades, and suddenly you get orders to start tearing families apart? How does an agency geek up its civil servants to suddenly become cruel when they were not so much cruel the day before the new administration? Or is it like cops, "fucking aye, I've been waiting for the gloves to taken off!"

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

If that were true, then wouldn't Kavenaugh sail through and be confirmed 97-0 like Kennedy was?

I'm hearing that I'll be a handmaid soon. Or I would be if I hadn't already been killed by tax reform and net neutrality. The fill in the blank protest signs, like they used with Gorsuch, were an especially nice touch.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I think it's a combination of your last two sentences. Previously, ICE was purportedly focused on finding people who were trouble -- felons, etc. Like any other government agency, sometimes they were lazy and sometimes they were overeager, and you didn't hear anything about the former for obvious reasons and you would hear about the latter from time to time. But what kind of person goes to work at ICE relative to the alternatives? I'm sure there are a bunch of people at ICE who can get zealous about their job for a range of reasons, and it sounds like the new administration is not only letting them go hog wild (whatever the reason) but encouraging them to do so by setting quotas.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

It's cute to see people sniff at blanket opposition now, like no one can remember 2008-16. Merrick Garland? What is that? Some kind of olde time Yule decoration? The name is vaguely familiar.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Can you refresh my recollection as to the how the vote for Miguel Estrada went?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Note the Federalist Society had its ad buy in favor of the candidate lined up before the announcement. Blank signs indeed.

We all know this process has become overly politicized. The politicization of the court has been a goal of the right for my entire adult life; court composition has been a huge rallying cry on the right, all in response to their grievances on the court's role in civil rights decisions.

But how to stop the spiral?

My preference would be a court with much more substantive expertise, that didn't render decisions in IP or Tax cases that left specialists scratching their head or that wrote a cogent and supported version of American history that could withstand scrutiny by actual historians. I'd rather see fewer political entries on resumes for the Court. But only ideology matters today.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Good old fashioned filibuster.

Filibusters were a good way of keeping fringe nominees off the bench and avoiding the kind of politicization we have today. Any number of divisive nominees were never put forward from fear of a filibuster. I'd love to see more consensus around court choices in general.

I know, bipartisanship is hard. Boo-hoo.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Yes, I believe it was a completely similar situation to Garland, in that Senate Democrats categorically obstructed Bush judicial appointments, preventing him from filling a seat on the DC Circuit.

No, wait -- that's not right. Bush II appointed several conservatives to the DC Circuit, including John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. Perhaps you were confused?

The post of yours to which I responded called out lefties who prepared to oppose Trump's nominee before they knew who it was. Of course, very few conservatives had a problem with kneejerk opposition to Obama. When the other side does it, one can sniff that they lack intellectual heft or principle. When your side does it, it's just a political tactic that doesn't mean anything.

I think it would be interesting to have a real conversation with someone like yourself about what is broken with the judicial appointment and confirmation process, but only if there is some prospect that we might actually agree on some shared principles. The right has been engaged in a decades-long project to shape -- to politicize -- the federal judiciary. It's not a secret. Of course the left responds. Each side can point to instances where the other side has abandoned prior norms, so each side can play the victim. I have many thoughts about this, but the overarching one is sadness. I think it's bad for the judicial system to be politicized in this way, and I don't see how to reverse it.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

He was the first appeals court nominee in history to be successfully filibustered. Perhaps he should have been given an up or down vote, as was being demanded for Garland, but that would require intellectual honesty, no? Per the Senate Judiciary Committee internal strategy memos, Estrada was filibustered because he "is Latino" and was being groomed for SCOTUS. (See https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106877910996248300 and let me hear more complaints about the Federalist Society involvement in the process.)

Bipartisanship is even harder when one party seems to think they'll be in the majority forever when they pull the pin on the nuclear option.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Both parties are essentially the same. We needed to shake things up.

TM

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Bipartisanship today is indeed impossible. It's gone. I'd love to bring it back, but, let's face it, where is there a Republican we can trust or deal with in a position of authority? I know you don't think well of the Republican leadership, despite being committed to what were, historically, considered conservative ideals.

There are Republicans we can deal with, and if any of them were in power, there might be hope. For example, both Hatch and Graham have histories of being able to work across the aisle. McConnell? No way, fuck him. Hypocritical lying ass. Ryan? Total ass, can't be trusted. Trump's team?! [uncontrollable laughter.]

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

No time for reading politics. I’m knee deep on very important issues involving whether a dash in a Japanese document from 1975 was a minus sign or a hyphen. I’d love to do some outside reading but the economy is depending on me keeping my focus.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I solved this already. It's a minus sign. Move on.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

There are Republican asses and Democratic asses. The kind of people who want to legislate are usually willing to compromise, because that is the essence of the job. That's not the problem. The issue is, there are enough Republican voters who will punish Republican legislators for bipartisanship. Republicans have to worry about getting primaries from the right. Democrats haven't had to, though maybe that is starting to change.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

One of the most interesting recent developments is that much derided and scorned Mitch McConnell has now become a folk hero to traditional conservatives, affectionately referred to as Cocaine Mitch. Leave it to creepy Blankenship and badass Elaine Chao to make McConnell actually likeable.

McConnell also has a pretty decently amusing social media team capitalizing on it, though they don't have quite the game of, say, Orrin Hatch's staff.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I'm sure there is a good explanation for why they are asses, but I'm just concerned with the fact that they are. And there are just a lot more of them running the show over on the Republican side.

It would be nice if Congress did stuff like hold hearings on major bills, for example, even if the Rs are going to control those hearings. The legislation just ends up better when you have some input and review.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Well, then, hoist him up on his petard and parade him about. Your hero.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

in the spirit of bipartisanship, I hope that the Dems can support the bill requiring congressional approval of Section 232 tariffs imposed by a President. Corker says it will go up for a vote soon.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I don’t know when bipartisanship died, but it certainly was six feet under in 1993 when not a single GOP house member voted for the Clinton stimulus package and Bob Dole* led a GOP filibuster against it.

Chelsea Clinton’s current mother in law was the deciding vote in the House. She knowingly sacrificed** her seat to save the bill.

* “Bob Dole is going to filibuster this wasteful spending,” Senator Dole said. “The American people may have been snookered by that smooth-talking draft dodger in the White House, but Bob Dole won’t be!” the senator continued.

** One would think that President Clinton might have given her a job or something after she took a spear for him, but loyalty is usually a one way street in politics. Must have led to some awkwardness at the engagement party.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Apparently, you never had a chance - https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anth...73ecf/?ref=yfp

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Not sure that's right -- maybe the fact that they are running the show just illuminates their assery more.

It would be nice, but don't you think it's the case that the lack of such process has more to do with the challenges Republicans have in agreeing on anything with each other? Granted, the Hastert Rule is what makes that so critical.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Less, you are such a naysayer. I, for one, welcome our new killer whale overlords.

Hat tip to the always-delightful Bess Levin:

Plus let’s not forget that the man does not share the good stuff with family. I mean, while Canadian Club is a perfectly adequate whiskey, it is no substitute for the Caskmates, amirite Sebby?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

You don’t think people can assume risk? Should Slave be able to sue Greedy for getting mixed with Paigow?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

An owner of a bad dog gets one free bite before she’s liable to victims of the dog in most states. Should owners of killer whales get more than that? You gotta figure that once Shamu starts eating trainers that she is likely to eat others and maybe Sea World should retire her. And that maybe the Department of Labor can enforce workplace safety for the trainers. But what do I know? I’m just a fan of the Nanny State, with all its child labor laws and such.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I agree with Kavanagh. We have abandoned assumption of the risk.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

We never had it with owners of animals, have we? Don’t they only get one tort-free bite under common law? So why should Sea World (the owners of Shamu) get more free bites than Sebby with his labradoodle? I would totally sue that pompous blowhard if his mutt took a nip at me while he was too busy pontificating over the 37 minute drum solo in his bootleg reel to reel of the Dead’s 1973 Red Rock show to pay attention to the evil little bastard.

And (serious question) has assumption of the risk ever applied in an employment situation?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

So we all agree Kavanaugh was correct. Kumbayah.

Re your question, I asked similar one about strip club employees a few months ago, and was told that, yes, if it part of the job.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Unrelatedly, I dont read as many blogs as some of you, but the story I am seeing in the MSM and hearing on NPR is the DNA tests are intended to correctly reunite child with parent.

But I think they are also intended to try to prove that illegal immigrants / asylum seekers are ferrying children to whom they are not family. If so, (1) are they wrong to so inquire (I think not); but (2) they were stupid to separate them and lose the chain of custody.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Why was she the "home run"? Faith again? You never responded to my earlier questions? If so, that is the opposite of originalism. It is rank "my indefensible beliefs Trump your rational positions."

As others said earlier, will you accept that "state's rights" mean a State can make a woman abort? Can the Constitution allow states to make them use TRUMP brand fomula instead of breasr mik?

Isn't a part of former "conservatism" a right to self-control and self-determination?

So. If not not for rhe desire to impose religious beliefs on others, why was she the "home run?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I'm not answering for SEC, but I'll try to speak for most people who loved Barrett and claimed to hate Roe because it violated states' rights:

Because they believe there is a greater law than the rational, logic based laws we have on the books.

The ardent pro-lifer can't accept the weighing of interests involved in abortion. There is no abortion law which can satisfy him. But he knows this argument elevates "feelings" over rational thought. He knows he can't argue that the union of an egg and sperm is immediately conscious life. So he takes shelter in states' rights, and the fact that Roe wasn't not the most tightly reasoned of SCOTUS precedents.

It's not "religious" belief in every instance. There are plenty of secular pro-lifers. It's "feelings." In this regard, it's indistinguishable from the "feelings" of college students that they shouldn't be forced to consider things that trigger them, or the "feelings" that lead to concepts like "microaggressions."

I'm with you. "Feelings" are worth considering, and people should be able to raise them by way of grievance, to help foster a more kind and considerate society. But they have no place in law. Particularly when hidden within the pretext of "states' rights."

(And this notion that men should have some say on abortions? That's quite repugnant. "I've impregnated you and therefore I acquire a claim against you which robs you of bodily autonomy." The nerve of that argument is astonishing.)

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Labradoodle? We're fighting next I see you.

I love dogs, but they're like having more kids. Hence, I have no dogs.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Democracy, our political system... neither can operate without good faith and commitment to compromise as necessary.

Somewhere in the last 40 years we shifted from a society where those things occurred into a Republic the politics of which run exclusively on rational self-interest and game theory.

Good luck reversing that. In case you haven't noticed, in almost all of our industries, in almost all of our commerce, hell, even in personal relations, we're trending toward nihilism. That's not hyperbole. I'm using the term clinically, with it's driest non-judgmental definition.

The blame is all over the place, but I'd label our obsession with financialization as the prime driver. It creates bloodless people and puts materialism, already a prime facet of our culture, on steroids.

Are you #winning? Because that's all that matters!