United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

[DarthOne]

right now the vast majority of americans are in denile.

We have to wait for the slower horses to cross the finish line unfortuantly.

And just how long will that take? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. We cannot wait for them to catch up.

 

[Vaermina]

House and Senate Democrats Plan Bill to Add Four Justices to Supreme Court

The Constitution allows Congress to set the number of Supreme Court justices.

theintercept.com

Oh good. This is going to end well.

Virtue signaling bill.

Because no way they have the votes needed for that with centrists like Manchin around.

 

[DarthOne]

Virtue signaling bill.

Because no way they have the votes needed for that with centrists like Manchin around.

Bet someone said the same thing about the Reichstag in the 1930's....

 

[Rocinante]

Bet someone said the same thing about the Reichstag in the 1930's....

They might not have the power to do it NOW.

Usually these things are an indication of things to come. They will probably eventually have the power to do it.

Depends how the midterms go.

 

[Terthna]

They might not have the power to do it NOW.

Usually these things are an indication of things to come. They will probably eventually have the power to do it.

Depends how the midterms go.

Which themselves depend on how willing the Dems are to cheat again; they could decide to rest on their laurels, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

How is it cheating? Congress has always had this authority, it's in the Constitution itself.

 

[Battlegrinder]

How is it cheating? Congress has always had this authority, it's in the Constitution itself.

It's cheating in the air bud "well, there's no rule saying we can't make this blatant power grab, so we will" way.

Yes, congress has the authority to do this, what they lack is a compelling reason. Thier stated issue, the idea that the SC, the same SC that shot down every single one of Trump's lawsuits and just handed down a ruling that massively expanded LGBT rights, is "broken" and "captured by the far right", is utterly laughable. This is, transparently, about power and turning the SC into a super-legislature to pass the parts of their agenda they can't pass via the normal legislative process (hence why they plan to add just enough justices to make it a 7-6 liberal court).

The other, marginally more defensible reason, is that the GOP screwed with norms to take over the court, therefor it's only fair to do it back. There are two issues with that. The first is that even if they hadn't "stolen garland's seat", we'd still have a 5-4 right leaning court. The second is that the republican's goal with the SC has been to basically undo the worst abuses of the warren court and reverse some of it's more odious decisions. Roe vs Wade being the obvious one, as it invented from whole cloth a "right to privacy" that not only doesn't exist in the constitution, but that doesn't exist outside of one very specific area of the law (since if americans actually had a "right to privacy" most of what the NSA does would be outright illegal).

One could argue that's a reason enough to oppose them, however the republican position on abortion and the SC has been "the SC should not have made this decision, it's a matter for lawmakers", not "the SC should have said that abortion is illegal everywhere forever".

 

[Megadeath]

-snip since if americans actually had a "right to privacy" most of what the NSA does would be outright illegal.
-snip-

That doesn't really follow. Rights aren't absolute, and the government is entirely within its rights and powers to abrogate your rights for a whole host of reasons. National security is a fairly common cause for such things, and I'd argue it's a pretty good reason too.

That's sort of like saying that you don't actually have a right to life and liberty, or the judicial system would be illegal for incarcerating and executing people.

 

[Battlegrinder]

That doesn't really follow. Rights aren't absolute, and the government is entirely within its rights and powers to abrogate your rights for a whole host of reasons. National security is a fairly common cause for such things, and I'd argue it's a pretty good reason too.

"Just because you have a right to privacy, that doesn't mean it's wrong for us to monitor your phone calls, emails, texts, online history, and literally every other bit of your private information we can get our hands on" is.....quite a take, since in effect that would mean you have a right to privacy, but no right to actually exercise it in any meaningful way (BTW, the SC has had people argue that to them, and they don't care for that line of logic). And I would certainly not expect someone from your side of the aisle to play the "the government can do anything it wants in the name of "National Security", especially the most secretive, least accountable parts of the government" card.

That's sort of like saying that you don't actually have a right to life and liberty, or the judicial system would be illegal for incarcerating and executing people.

As it happens, there is no such thing as a constitutional right to life and liberty.

 

[Zachowon]

"Just because you have a right to privacy, that doesn't mean it's wrong for us to monitor your phone calls, emails, texts, online history, and literally every other bit of your private information we can get our hands on" is.....quite a take, since in effect that would mean you have a right to privacy, but no right to actually exercise it in any meaningful way (BTW, the SC has had people argue that to them, and they don't care for that line of logic). And I would certainly not expect someone from your side of the aisle to play the "the government can do anything it wants in the name of "National Security", especially the most secretive, least accountable parts of the government" card.



As it happens, there is no such thing as a constitutional right to life and liberty.

Hey, the NSA has improved! I swear

 

[Megadeath]

"Just because you have a right to privacy, that doesn't mean it's wrong for us to monitor your phone calls, emails, texts, online history, and literally every other bit of your private information we can get our hands on" is.....quite a take, since in effect that would mean you have a right to privacy, but no right to actually exercise it in any meaningful way (BTW, the SC has had people argue that to them, and they don't care for that line of logic). And I would certainly not expect someone from your side of the aisle to play the "the government can do anything it wants in the name of "National Security", especially the most secretive, least accountable parts of the government" card.

That's because you insist on thinking of everyone as either a Republican or perfectly fitting some imaginary cookie cutter democrat image you've imagined. It's a stupid way to think of politics, and even more so since, ya know, I'm not American. I believe firmly in a strong state, supported by a robust military and intelligence community. The fact that the government specifically has the power to ignore your rights does not in any way affect your rights when dealing with other individuals or groups.

As it happens, there is no such thing as a constitutional right to life and liberty.

You don't see how sanctioned execution or incarceration might deprive you of ones that actually are spelled out? Like, you know they won't let you bring your gun to prison right?

 

[Zachowon]

That's because you insist on thinking of everyone as either a Republican or perfectly fitting some imaginary cookie cutter democrat image you've imagined. It's a stupid way to think of politics, and even more so since, ya know, I'm not American. I believe firmly in a strong state, supported by a robust military and intelligence community. The fact that the government specifically has the power to ignore your rights does not in any way affect your rights when dealing with other individuals or groups.


You don't see how sanctioned execution or incarceration might deprive you of ones that actually are spelled out? Like, you know they won't let you bring your gun to prison right?

As someone who is in the mikitary and the IC.
Spying on your own people is not a good thing.

 

[Battlegrinder]

That's because you insist on thinking of everyone as either a Republican or perfectly fitting some imaginary cookie cutter democrat image you've imagined. It's a stupid way to think of politics, and even more so since, ya know, I'm not American. I believe firmly in a strong state, supported by a robust military and intelligence community. The fact that the government specifically has the power to ignore your rights does not in any way affect your rights when dealing with other individuals or groups.

If you are not American, I would suggest refraining from commenting on the specifics of American law until you have actually studied it, because you are almost entirely wrong on this. The american legal system and specifically the consitution and bill of rights exist explicitly in order to restrain the government and force it to respect your right while largely not limiting private parties. You've got your understanding of the entire system backwards if you think it's ok for the government to ignore your rights but private parties are forced to respect them.

You don't see how sanctioned execution or incarceration might deprive you of ones that actually are spelled out? Like, you know they won't let you bring your gun to prison right?

The due process clause explicitly allows certain rights and privileges to be suspended and revoked, however there has to be due process (again, you should study the law before making arguments about how it works). You can to be stripped of your 2nd amendment rights after a judge and jury deem it necessary. The NSA and other spy organizations do not do that, they spy on everyone without obtaining authorization to violate the privacy of any given person, there is zero due process involved.

 

[Megadeath]

If you are not American, I would suggest refraining from commenting on the specifics of American law until you have actually studied it, because you are almost entirely wrong on this. The american legal system and specifically the consitution and bill of rights exist explicitly in order to restrain the government and force it to respect your right while largely not limiting private parties. You've got your understanding of the entire system backwards if you think it's ok for the government to ignore your rights but private parties are forced to respect them.



The due process clause explicitly allows certain rights and privileges to be suspended and revoked, however there has to be due process (again, you should study the law before making arguments about how it works). You can to be stripped of your 2nd amendment rights after a judge and jury deem it necessary. The NSA and other spy organizations do not do that, they spy on everyone without obtaining authorization to violate the privacy of any given person, there is zero due process involved.

And, I'm going to respectfully tell you where you can shove that suggestion. Asides from anything else, an American saying people shouldn't worry about how other countries run is hilarious.

You probably ought to bone up a little yourself, actually. Especially since it's your country and you ought to be the expert.

As it happens, there is no such thing as a constitutional right to life and liberty.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property

There also is due process involved in NSA and other surveillance. There's an entire court for it in fact. Due process is after all whatever the government determines it to be, and they have decided warrantless surveillance is permited under FISA approved guidelines.

 

[Battlegrinder]

And, I'm going to respectfully tell you where you can shove that suggestion. Asides from anything else, an American saying people shouldn't worry about how other countries run is hilarious.

I didn't say you shouldn't worry, I said you shouldn't shoot your mouth off without taking the time to actually understand what you're talking about.

You probably ought to bone up a little yourself, actually. Especially since it's your country and you ought to be the expert.

These snide "haha, I'm actually the one winning" comments of yours would come off a lot a better if you would stop saying things that are factually wrong.

There also is due process involved in NSA and other surveillance. There's an entire court for it in fact. Due process is after all whatever the government determines it to be, and they have decided warrantless surveillance is permited under FISA approved guidelines.

That is, again, wrong. There are actually rules and standards in play for what is and is not due process, the government cannot just make it up as they go. It took me ten seconds to find this list, you have no excuse for being this ignorant. I've coded the ones the FISA process fails in red, and as I'm no expert on this highly secret and unaccountable process, it's quite likely worse than this.

1. An unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. The opportunity to present reasons for the proposed action not to be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know the opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based only on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. A requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
10. A requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision.

Furthermore, as bad as this is, it gets even worse. The FISA court has an approval rate that makes third world kangaroo courts look like bastions of fairness and evenhandness, having only rejected 85 applications in it's entire history, out of more than 40,000. You would know this, if you had spent even a few minutes skimming it's wiki page.

But it gets even worse. The FISA court is used to authorize spying on single, specific targets, so there is at least a pretense of restraint. The NSA's mass surveillance and data collection program did not even go through that level of rubber stamping, they just spy on everyone all the time with no warrant or authorization from anyone, including the FISA court.

 

[Megadeath]

I didn't say you shouldn't worry, I said you shouldn't shoot your mouth off without taking the time to actually understand what you're talking about.



These snide "haha, I'm actually the one winning" comments of yours would come off a lot a better if you would stop saying things that are factually wrong.



That is, again, wrong. There are actually rules and standards in play for what is and is not due process, the government cannot just make it up as they go. It took me ten seconds to find this list, you have no excuse for being this ignorant. I've coded the ones the FISA process fails in red, and as I'm no expert on this highly secret and unaccountable process, it's quite likely worse than this.

1. An unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. The opportunity to present reasons for the proposed action not to be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know the opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based only on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. A requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
10. A requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision.

Furthermore, as bad as this is, it gets even worse. The FISA court has an approval rate that makes third world kangaroo courts look like bastions of fairness and evenhandness, having only rejected 85 applications in it's entire history, out of more than 40,000. You would know this, if you had spent even a few minutes skimming it's wiki page.

But it gets even worse. The FISA court is used to authorize spying on single, specific targets, so there is at least a pretense of restraint. The NSA's mass surveillance and data collection program did not even go through that level of rubber stamping, they just spy on everyone all the time with no warrant or authorization from anyone, including the FISA court.

That list specifically deals with actions intended to deprive someone of life, liberty or property. It's not relevant to surveillance.

Also, if FISA doesn't authorise the mass data collection, what would you call this?

https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/documents/702%20Documents/declassified/2019_702_Cert_FISC_Opinion_06Dec19_OCR.pdf

 

[Battlegrinder]

That list specifically deals with actions intended to deprive someone of life, liberty or property. It's not relevant to surveillance.

That list specifically deals with due process, the thing the FISA court does not use. Remember this?

There also is due process involved in NSA and other surveillance.

Also, if FISA doesn't authorise the mass data collection, what would you call this?
https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/documents/702 Documents/declassified/2019_702_Cert_FISC_Opinion_06Dec19_OCR.pdf

I'm not slogging through 80 page of whatever that is, because it's wrong. The very idea that law enforcement could go to a judge, any judge, and just say "yeah, we want a warrant to search everyone, on the grounds they might possible by involved in some sort of crime" is a clear violation of the 4th amendment and would equally clearly violate the "right to privacy", if it existed.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A unreasonable searching targeting everyone, without warrants or probably cause directly violates the supreme law of the land, and if the FISA court says otherwise they are wrong.

 

[Megadeath]

That list specifically deals with due process, the thing the FISA court does not use. Remember this?

Yeah, your Wikipedia article, giving us a list from an article written by a judge. It's "highly influential" apparently, but in no way is it legal definition. It's basically a judge telling us what he thinks due process means, as related by the utterly infallible Wikipedia.

I'm not slogging through 80 page of whatever that is, because it's wrong. The very idea that law enforcement could go to a judge, any judge, and just say "yeah, we want a warrant to search everyone, on the grounds they might possible by involved in some sort of crime" is a clear violation of the 4th amendment and would equally clearly violate the "right to privacy", if it existed.

Gosh, I'm sorry I went for relevant and complete evidence, rather than the easier to read wiki article. Did you even try reading the first page? And, did you forget already that the entire point of our conversation is the idea that the government abrogating your rights under certain circumstances doesn't invalidate that you have those rights.

A unreasonable searching targeting everyone, without warrants or probably cause directly violates the supreme law of the land, and if the FISA court says otherwise they are wrong.

Yeah, it's not the FISA court who decided they had that power. That would be congress. Unless I'm misremembering, it was in fact a Republican government. Surely you're not saying someone from "your side of the aisle" could be wrong?

 

[Battlegrinder]

Yeah, your Wikipedia article, giving us a list from an article written by a judge. It's "highly influential" apparently, but in no way is it legal definition. It's basically a judge telling us what he thinks due process means, as related by the utterly infallible Wikipedia.

Feel free to present anyone in the legal field that thinks you being convicted of something without your knowledge, ability to defend yourself, or even be represented at all is "due process".

Gosh, I'm sorry I went for relevant and complete evidence, rather than the easier to read wiki article. Did you even try reading the first page?

No, I didn't read it, because it's wrong.

And, did you forget already that the entire point of our conversation is the idea that the government abrogating your rights under certain circumstances doesn't invalidate that you have those rights.

Spying on everyone all the time is not "certain circumstances", that's such a broad abrogating it means the right that it proports to be abrogating might as well not exist.

Yeah, it's not the FISA court who decided they had that power. That would be congress. Unless I'm misremembering, it was in fact a Republican government. Surely you're not saying someone from "your side of the aisle" could be wrong?

I've critized the patriot act repeatedly, as recently as last week, so I'm not sure what the intent of this "haha, now you'll have to admit republicans can be bad guys too" gambit of yours is. Are you trying to expose me as someone that's intellectually consistent and not a mindless partisan? Because that appears to be the main result......oh no?

 

[Megadeath]

Feel free to present anyone in the legal field that thinks you being convicted of something without your knowledge, ability to defend yourself, or even be represented at all is "due process".

It's not a case of convicting someone, it's searching for evidence. If the standards you're suggesting were actually applied, it would be ridiculous! Imagine if in order to surveil a suspected terrorist or foreign intelligence agent you had to provide them: "Notice of the proposed action", or "The right to know the opposing evidence." It's ludicrous to suggest that's reasonable, let alone necessary.

No, I didn't read it, because it's wrong.

"I ignored evidence that supports your position, because I disagree with your position." I mean... Wow, I guess that's one way to stick your head in the sand and call it victory.

Spying on everyone all the time is not "certain circumstances", that's such a broad abrogating it means the right that it proports to be abrogating might as well not exist.

It's also not what's happening, so I don't see your point.

I've critized the patriot act repeatedly, as recently as last week, so I'm not sure what the intent of this "haha, now you'll have to admit republicans can be bad guys too" gambit of yours is. Are you trying to expose me as someone that's intellectually consistent and not a mindless partisan? Because that appears to be the main result......oh no?

Yeah, it was meant to contrast and compare with your own earlier post, saying that you wouldn't expect someone from my "side" to hold a particular position. It's part of my ongoing effort to highlight the stupidity of the false dichotomy. Left and right, Democrat and Republican, they're at best useful generalisations and most the time they're actively detrimental rather than useful. It seems to manifest most often in a belief that one's own side is a rich tapestry of different views and opinions, working and striving together, whereas the "others" are basically relegated to cardboard cut-outs with identical thoughts and feelings, and often the ridiculous belief that they recognise the same "truth" their side holds too, but they're denying or ignoring it for nefarious purpose.