anon_
7hr ago
There's a real question about separation of powers if a President tries to appoint principal officers without the consent of the Senate.
Or if there's no one to actually run the US Attorney's office.
There's no way around the dysfunction. Congress tried to craft a compromise (muddle) solution.
anon_
7hr ago
At least one such GOP Senator has said he will not vote to bypass the blue-slip process that has been custom for a century or so.
Even the 60-vote Obama Senate respected it, rather than allowing Obama to put a Keith Ellison type as USA in Texas.
anon_
7hr ago
And if everyone else feels that way, I think moderation guidelines will be a less than pressing concern during a civil war.
10/10.
Can we put this on the sidebar?
anon_
7hr ago
I think whatever response you give here, you should give in sufficiently general terms that I can also give it to my lefty college buddies that think we're at the point of having to pick up guns against the Ice-Nazis.
At the very least, it's "we're not even close".
anon_
7hr ago
Because in subsequent interviews Comey has constructively admitted to submitting false testimony on multiple occasions.
That is absolutely true. It also has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the attorney that submitted his case to the grand jury for indictment was properly appointed.
People go absolutely bonkers on procedural rulings. It wasn't even dismissal with prejudice!
anon_
7hr ago
OK, well then allowing or forbidding her from going into the service does nothing for the marriage rate.
She as the person-who-would-have-enlisted already had all the traits and dispositions that were gonna lead to not being married at 28.
anon_
3d ago
Well, I think given how negative about sex the modern left has become, it was inevitable that some reaction would happen.
Moreover, I think the football-and-beer contingent never quite as prudish as the conservative average.
anon_
3d ago
Taking aside the insipid culture war aspect (which we all agree on and hence is just kind of boring to discuss), it's actually kind of interesting as an extremely effective example about the Generalized Lucas Critique.
- Conditioned on some threshold SAT score, having a good GPA was fairly predictive of college success.
- This makes sense -- the SAT was a good filter for aptitude. Beyond aptitude, GPA measured other components (diligence, focus) that contribute
- Once you remove the SAT, having a good GPA is no longer predicative
- You can not use correlations in the historical data to predict the effect of a change that modifies the structural rules by which the data are generated.
anon_
3d ago
I also found amusing the implicit admission that doing things like prancing around in a bikini is a central aspect of a young woman's lifestyle.
You know, maybe this off topic and deserves it's own thread, but at some point we're going to come around to an America where the red tribe is more promiscuous and sex-positive than the blue.
When that inflection point comes, everyone from Gen X and older is gonna have to totally rewire their brain.
anon_
3d ago
Just shows the importance of having your own versions of the services which are necessary for daily life.
This would require unchaining their private sector to provide them, which in turn changes the balance of domestic power.
These things are all linked, you can't just manage an economy like you're playing SimCity.
anon_
3d ago
The most shocking thing is that Rubio isn't even doing this to protect Americans. Rubio is doing this on behalf of a foreign country.
Be assured if the ICC had their way, they would have charged Rummy and Cheney.
Protecting a small country from the ICC is an excellent way to remind them not to try it against a big one.
anon_
3d ago
Obviously the ICC and the rest of the internationalist crowd continues to believe (just as they did in 2003 when W invaded Iraq) that national sovereignty must give way to international law. Waving around the democratic mandate of the Israeli government is totally irrelevant to the question, given they don't believe that the nation itself has such authority. Quibbling about how it's constituted is besides the point.
They're pretty obviously wrong, but it is important to actually understand the core of their position (even if we all disagree with it). It would be impossible for them to concede that a national leader has impunity if he can demonstrate sufficient democratic mandate -- indeed it makes a mockery of the entire conception of international law as vindicating universal and inalienable human rights. They can't just say "well they're inalienable unless the guy alienating them won an election" -- that's an untenable position.
anon_
4d ago
Step one in making things better for young white men is killing affirmative action, which is directly discriminating against them.
This would probably improve the lot of most Jews, who stand to take some proportion of the spoils currently reserved for URM.
If Fuentes could stomach doing something that indirectly helps them because it also helps him, that is.
anon_
4d ago
curtails Democrats own ability to issue orders of dubious legality like Obama drone striking a US citizen
If you're going to trot this tired canard out, you should consider invoking it at Ulysses Grant who ordered ~100K US citizens killed by canon and bayonet.
The democrats are saying the orders may be unlawful and the military itself should exercise judgment on the unlawfulness to remove trump. The responsibility is borne solely by others and never by the democrats for affirming an active course of action.
If they had made themselves judge of the lawfulness, you'd consider that arrogation of authority they don't have.
I do think the a soldier should consult with a JAG if there is a questionable order, even given the presumption of legality.
anon_
4d ago
I can't say that I buy the second bullet about implying that unlawful orders already happened. YMMV, but I think if you look at a claim and conclude it's "without evidence" then you should probably conclude that the speaker(s) did not actually intent that claim.
anon_
4d ago
I think he asserted that it already happened and they "SHOULD BE ARRESTED" (capitalization original).
anon_
4d ago
We very often talk about the future in such terms. I told my son "if you bang your spoon on the table, it gets taken away". It's not hypothetical, it's saying that if a possible thing comes to pass, this is what may come of it.
So yeah, the Dem Senators are indeed highlighting this as a thing that might happen in the future. Perhaps they singled it out because they fear it.
anon_
4d ago
They at the very least are guilty of providing atrocious legal advice.
That's true, but it's hardly anything near sedition.
Soldiers unsure about the legality of orders should go talk to a JAG. That's what it's for.
anon_
5d ago
Based on her traits before having entered service? Or in the counterfactual where the very same person with the very same disposition to enlist who randomly was disqualified at 18?
Because it’s probably correlated in a way that’s preexisting. I doubt there’s much of a causal relationship.
anon_
5d ago
I’m not familiar with any data on this but I seriously doubt the average woman who signs up for military service anywhere in the world normally does so at the age of 18.
Even a basic Google search for "average age at enlistment" cites 18-20 for the US, France and a few others I plugged in. For Israel and other compulsory-service countries it's 18. Germany showed a slightly higher average in the low 20s.
I also doubt that a woman doing military service is generally conducive to her ever entering a stable marriage in the first place.
I will take moving the goalposts here as admission that the original point is conceded.
Not that any of this disproves OP’s argument about the 30% figure in any sense but it needs to be pointed out anyway.
It doesn't disprove it, but it does say this scenario is rather rare.
anon_
6d ago
her soldiering and child-rearing will come into conflict, even in peacetime.
The average enlisted soldier serves less than 1.5 4-year terms. An 18 year old woman would be discharged at 22, 24 or on the outside 26 -- well before any appreciable drop in fertility. A 24 year old can easily have 4-6 kids, well over the current average (e.g. beyond the current most-binding-constraint).
Society can afford for 30% of young men to die in the trenches and recover fairly quickly
Even in the worst of the wars, only 15% of young men died -- that would in France/Germany in WWI. So this is also off by a favor of 2.
I don't buy that argument. The statutory text makes clear that after the 120 day term expires (c2), then (d) the district court appoints until the vacancy is filled. What would the point of an expiration be if the AG just gets to repeatedly re-fill it? The entire (c)(2) provision would be surplussage.
That said, maybe the Supreme Court looks at 28USC§546 and decides the way Prof Calabresi argues here. I just don't see it.
More options
Context Copy link