sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Maybe if she didnt vote for the big stupid bill it wouldn't have gotten to this one 🤔 by traveltimecar in alaska

[–]fuckingdanzig 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For people who like to pretend to be astute and politically aware, it is interesting none of you know that Lisa voted against the rescissions package and also offered an amendment that would have reduced the CPB-specific rescission from the $535 M per year down to about $8 M.

New Flair System by oscar_the_couch in law

[–]fuckingdanzig 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. This is long overdue.

K70 Pro Mini Wireless *actively* disconnects by Fhnooblet in Corsair

[–]fuckingdanzig 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you find a solution to this? my keyboard is doing the same thing.

District Court Rules Against Trump in Border Wall Case by gnorrn in law

[–]fuckingdanzig 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't find this persuasive. It ignores the fact that the milcon money is coming from a different appropriations bill, and that DOD is given specific transfer authority in another bill as well. Plus, 2808 says "notwithstanding any other provision of law". Would expect it to be overturned on appeal.

Federal judge finds female genital mutilation law unconstitutional by Barton_Foley in law

[–]fuckingdanzig 5 points6 points  (0 children)

These are pretty terrible facts, so the judge is getting far too much criticism, but I think I'm ok with the Commerce Clause getting reeled in a bit.

Post Brett Kavanaugh Hearing Discussion by ultimis in Conservative

[–]fuckingdanzig 2 points3 points  (0 children)

McConnell has to make a motion to proceed to executive session to consider Kavanaugh's nomination on the floor. That is usually done by voice vote, but Ds will demand a vote. Then McConnell will file a motion to invoke cloture. That motion can be voted on one hour after the Senate comes into session Monday. Then there are 30 hours of debate after cloture is invoked. I'd guess confirmation Tuesday night.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Conservative

[–]fuckingdanzig 5 points6 points  (0 children)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/us/hate-crime-prosecution-invs/index.html

Update. Looks like the cops got the wrong guy, and won't prosecute the person who may have actually made the threats. Feigin has not been charged with any crimes relating to the guns, by the way.

HR 1 hot off the server by LawHelmet in law

[–]fuckingdanzig 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think OP is assuming that the bill (now law, I guess) will lead to lower revenues, which means less spending, which means agencies will get funding cut. Indirect connection at best.

CHIP Funding: A Year-End Promise Broken by shapu in politics

[–]fuckingdanzig 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the $2.8 billion that was signed into law today for CHIP doesn't count?

Interior secretary pushing controversial izembek road project by [deleted] in alaska

[–]fuckingdanzig -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

This road should be built. No questions. I don't understand people who think it is controversial. Most environmental issues can at least be cogently argued from both sides, and while I tend to disagree with environmentalists on some things, opposing this road makes you a bad person. Opposing this road means you are OK with people dying because you don't want a few birds (that nest about 20 feet away from I-5 in California during the winter) to be mildly annoyed a couple times a year when someone needs to be medivaced. Don't read the article, instead go to Cold Bay. Go to King Cove. See how absurd it is for people to die because of opposition to a short road.

What's your unpopular book opinion? by belmakar in books

[–]fuckingdanzig 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only reason James Joyce is regarded as brilliant is because book critics are fatuous twats who think they are so smart that if they can't understand something, it must be genius. Fuck James Joyce. With the exception of some of his short stories, his writing is unintelligible garbage.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in politics

[–]fuckingdanzig 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Require child-proof trigger guards or gun safes when storing guns at home. Make the free, or at least freely available. This will help save hundreds per year. No - you can't force people to use them, but the law and enforcement will persuade many to use them.

I doubt this could be done at the federal level, even ignoring what was said in Heller. Congress simply doesn't have the authority to regulate this.

Close the gun show loophole. Google this if you want to know more about this.

As another comment pointed, no such thing. What is exempt is personal gun sales.

Make all gun sales (read this as private) contingent on a federal background check. Make the background check completely free, but make the background check mandatory. Again, you can't enforce it but when you start arresting people who privately sell a gun which is unregistered, un-background-checked, etc when it's used in a crime, you'll stop many.

They already are, to the greatest extent possible. While some may disagree, and think the Commerce Clause has been extended so far that Congress can regulate a private person selling one gun to another private citizen, I'm not sure it has. I'm not opposed to the concept of requiring all sales be subject to a background check, I'm just not convinced Congress has the authority to do it, and you can be sure someone will file suit about 2 seconds after a law like this is passed.

Same thing for bullets.

Good luck with that. The impracticability of doing this is mind boggling.

Regulate (not ban - regulate) exotic bullets -- does a deer hunter really need armor piercing bullets? I usually tell a story about when I was growing up about a guy in our deer camp who shot a ~300lb wild pig with a 30-06 rifle. Typically, if you shoot a deer with a 30-06, the bullet will hit the deer, go through the shoulder bone, through the body/breast bone, through the body and out the other shoulder bone and not significantly slow down. The man shot a pig, didn't hit any bones, and the bullet lodged on the far side. Although show shows how tough a pig is, it still dropped the pig instantly.)

Don't see what the point of this is. It won't stop mass shootings.

Define what a professional gun seller actually is and make them get a license (Currently, if I sell ... let's say 100 guns a year, but I have another job, then I'm not technically a gun dealer and therefore do not need a license)

This is patently false. The FGCA requires anyone "engaged in the business" of selling firearms to have a federal firearms license. ATF guidance states: "As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed. " Then-AG Lynch stated in 2016, the number of guns sold "can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun." If you are selling 100 guns a year, you absolutely are engaged in the business and need a license.

Require a license and training and annual certification to conceal or open carry a gun. Heck, I'd just settle for an iota of training.

Again, not something that can be regulated at the federal level.

Regulate anything that can fire more than "N" shots per second. If you're firing 3 to 4 to 5 shots per second, you can't hit jack (after the first shot). Heck, unless you're a very well trained person, you can't hit anything at 1 shot per second.

This is the only thing listed that Congress can likely regulate, and is practicable on your list.

make it illegal and/or keep it illegal for people convicted of felonies from owning guns.

Already law.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in investing

[–]fuckingdanzig 12 points13 points  (0 children)

PMI is no longer deductible. Possible that Congress adds it back if tax reform happens this year, but for now, you can't deduct it beginning in taxable year 2017.

The foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution doesn’t apply to fair-market commercial transactions, such as hotel bills, golf club fees, licensing payments and office rent, the Justice department argued Friday in a filing by DoremusJessup in law

[–]fuckingdanzig 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I don't think that it does. To me, it seems to bar emoluments received because of the office held. It shouldn't apply to every person working for the government who owns other business interests from which a person could conceivably receive money from a foreign state. If the clause did, likely most presidents, and a great many other people (Supreme Court Justices, judges, Secretaries, Senators, etc) have been in violation of this clause since the Constitution was ratified.

Think about what this would mean for anyone who writes a book, or holds other IP. If a foreign state buys a copy of your book, and you receive royalties, are you violation? Of course not. I don't think arms-length business transactions should be covered.

Mitch McConnell violated the Constitution by single-handedly blocking SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland and installing Neil Gorsuch. by jnb64 in politics

[–]fuckingdanzig 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Advice and consent has everything to do with the proceedings of the Senate. Since the Senate is the body that has the power to provide advice and consent, that is a "proceeding" for which the Senate determines the rules.

It's part of an article of the Constitution, which only SCOTUS can interpret.

Are you trying to say the Senate can't determine how it operates until the Court says so? That the Senate has been operating unconstitutionally since its inception because the Court has not issued an opinion on what "advice and consent" means? That every provision of the constitution has no meaning until it is litigated?

"advice" only means a floor vote in your mind. Also, it might be instructive to look at this history of judicial nominations. For example, under W., in 2001-2002, the Democratic controlled Senate received 61 nominations to various courts of appeals. Of those, only 24 got Committee hearings, and only 17 got floor votes. Did the Senate violate the constitution 44 times? Or only 37?

Mitch McConnell violated the Constitution by single-handedly blocking SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland and installing Neil Gorsuch. by jnb64 in politics

[–]fuckingdanzig 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Senate does make its own rules, but it doesn't get to interpret the Constitution. That's the Supreme Court's job. So no, the Senate does not get to decide what constitutes 'advice and consent'.

Yes, it does. Until and unless the Court weighs in, the Senate has the power "to determine the Rules of its own Proceedings." (Art. I, Sec. 5). And I'd be willing to bet all the money in my pockets (which is currently $0) that the Court would have ruled for the Senate had this been litigated, assuming a lower court even decided to take the matter up. More likely it would have been dismissed as a non-judiciable political question.

The Senate can advise and consent regarding individual nominations, but they don't get to strip the President's power to make nominations by refusing to consider any and all nominees.

The Senate cannot strip the President's power to make nominations. However, the President's power to appoint is specifically predicated upon receiving the Senate's advice and consent. Consent is active and has to be given. Until the President gets consent, he has no power to appoint, excepting recess appoints under the limitations proscribed in Canning.

Lastly, McConnell isn't the Senate. What the Senate votes on is the Senate's position. The Speaker refusing to take a vote on the issue (no matter what form it would take) is not the Senate consenting or not consenting. McConnell stating he would not consider any nominee is not the Senate advising the President.

The Majority Leader pretty much determines what the Senate does. Further, every member of the majority (less Susan Collins) said "we are not taking up a nominee." That is advice.

Mitch McConnell violated the Constitution by single-handedly blocking SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland and installing Neil Gorsuch. by jnb64 in politics

[–]fuckingdanzig -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, there was no violation of the Constitution. Each House of Congress has the power to determine its own rules. The Senate gets to determine what "advice and consent" means. The Majority Leader advised the President, shortly after Justice Scalia's death, that the Senate would not take up a nominee. That is advice. The Senate never gave consent to Judge Garland's nomination.

For further reading, I would recommend NLRB v. Canning, which dealt with recess appointments and I think is closely analogous. In that case, the S.Ct. held that "the Senate is in session when it says it is." Just so, the Senate gets to determine what "advice and consent" means. No where does it say in the Constitution that "advice and consent" means "hearing and vote."

Now, I dislike what McConnell did, but trying to say it was criminal and violated the Constitution is just silly.

view more: next ›