Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Maybe you can explain this to me, because I am genuinely confused about why this is a good idea.

Suppose that Congress passes a law that says, waste drainage on federal property can't be larger than standard sizes. Maybe that's a good law, maybe it isn't, but now it's in the federal code.

The EPA decides it has jurisdiction to promulgate regulations under this law (and let's assume it does), and it enacts regulations which say

- "waste drainage" includes indoor plumbing and connections to main lines, but not culverts and ditches and the like
-"federal land" includes real property managed by the GSA, but not private property on federally owned land such as national parks, and not military bases
-"standard sizes" refers to such-and-such particular set of industry standards

If you manage a concessionaire at a national park or are a contractor who builds things for the Air Force, it seems to me that it's helpful to have these regulations, because the law that Congress passed is pretty unclear, and the regulations add certainty so you can comply.

Comes along the Donald and says he's going to get rid of the regulations. How does that help you? The law is still on the books, and it's going to take Congress to fix that. If you get rid of the regulations, the concessionaire doesn't know what size culvert it can install, and the contractor doesn't know what pipes to use. Without regulations, the only way to resolve the question is to go to a federal court, which is expensive.

So why do you like his idea?

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

My theory, at least for today: Sebby is not gullible, he's temperamentally conservative and identifies (like many of them) as an Independent. NTTAWWT.

Re: Aca
 

The idea that you make a choice to use automobiles in today's USA may be intellectually satisfying, but it makes about as much sense as saying that you choose to be heterosexual. You can opt out if you really want to, and a few people do, but still.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Did Clinton set Al Gore out to reduce regulations by a set %? It is a dumb rule, even if regulations are "bad." Maybe a reduction of word count could achieve something, but simply reducing the number of regulations only leads to an increase in the size of regulations.

Take this pink ribbon off my eyes.
 

Well, I have the musical taste of a 16 year old girl (a 16 year old girl circa 1999, but still). So welcome to the club.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Agreed.

Also, Matt Levine:

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

I don't recall that there was a fixed number, but yes, he did send Al out to look for regs that could be eliminated.

Which is probably a good thing to do from time to time, as long as you're deciding on the merits of each particular reg.

Re: Take this pink ribbon off my eyes.
 

I like this club. Except the music, which is stupid.

Don't you think I know exactly where I stand?
 

Your irrational hatred of our president has blinded you to the pleasures of late 20th century Orange County power pop.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

This is truly excellent.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

I am convinced that the key to understanding Republicans today is that they have long since dispensed with any notion that they must reconcile their inconsistent stances. They take hypocrisy as a given, and are amused by people who sincerely seek to figure out what the right thing to do is in any given situation.

Witness the Senate today, where Republicans are simultaneously proud of what they did to Merrick Garland in denying him a hearing and offended at the notion that the Dems would invoke cloture on the plagarist. It is all an act, they just don't give a shit.

At the end of the day, is there really any answer but to say to people like Sebby, "Fuck you you ignorant asshat"? Because he won't listen to anything you say, and is downright proud of how stupid he sounds.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

From a GOP perspective, the hypocrisy you see is, at the very least, on both sides. Democrats abolished the filibuster for lower-court judges when they didn't like Republican objections, so how can they complain today?

The larger story is that for more than three decades, conservatives have been self-consciously trying to use judicial appointments as a tool of political change. Before the Reagan years, it was understood that judicial appointments had political consequences, but there wasn't a concerted effort by either party to remake the judiciary. Under Reagan, that changed, and it has put great pressure on the norms which previously governed the process. Conservatives started it, and Republicans care more about it than Democrats (arguably, why McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on Garland was shrewd), but Democrats know that if they're not playing the game then they're getting played, so they try too. Under the Constitution, the President appoints judges and a majority of the Senate is required to confirm them, and anything else that gets in the way is not going to ensure. How long before someone tries to pack the Court again?

I am thinking that the Supreme Court's importance is overrated. Better to win Congress and write legislation than to win the Court and interpret it on the margin.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

On the other hand, "In the five short years before Reid invoked the nuclear option, the GOP mounted 54% of all filibusters against nominees in US history."

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

My point isn't limited to the judiciary; Republican hypocrisy abounds everywhere you look, even in the barrage of issues that have become their favorite attacks, like emails (Hillary's matter, no one elses) and golf (Trump's golfing is different than Obamas). The you-do-it-too-na-na-na response is just one of many defense strategies, but one they really aren't even bothering with much any more.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

Remember the Nixon rule, which is part of what died today.