Wire-tapping American citizens was unconstitutional, until it was for National Security. Drone bombing American citizens was unconstitutional, until it was for National Security. Banning...
Wire-tapping American citizens was unconstitutional, until it was for National Security.
Drone bombing American citizens was unconstitutional, until it was for National Security.
Banning immigrants of a certain religion was unconstitutional, until it was for National Security.
It never was a fallacy. The Patriot Act was a power grab that was an avalanche rather than a slippery slope. What is happening now is the consequence of a long standing malignant disease that put...
Is "slippery slope" still a fallacy?
It never was a fallacy. The Patriot Act was a power grab that was an avalanche rather than a slippery slope.
What is happening now is the consequence of a long standing malignant disease that put party politics before the rights of people or the good of the nation as a whole.
The Citizens United decision gave this disease fuel and oxygen for unlimited growth to kill the host (the electorate) and continue to survive. SCOTUS as a result is now a political body.
It was signed without anyone having time to read the bill...almost as if it was written ahead of time and it was just pulled out at the most opportune moment; in the wake of the September 11th...
The Patriot Act was a power grab that was an avalanche rather than a slippery slope.
It was signed without anyone having time to read the bill...almost as if it was written ahead of time and it was just pulled out at the most opportune moment; in the wake of the September 11th attacks.
The bill was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on October 23, the same day it was introduced....The bill passed[just after midnight] on October 24 by a vote of 357-66. The Senate passed the bill the very next day and the president signed the bill on October 26, 2001.
The modern reality is that most house members simply do not have time to read the bills they are signing into law. Their constituents will be calling them and telling them to support (or not) a...
The modern reality is that most house members simply do not have time to read the bills they are signing into law. Their constituents will be calling them and telling them to support (or not) a bill as soon as the news picks it up and publishes some snippet explaining it.
I'm sure they have a team of legal experts combing over the bills for potential threats to their re-election, as well.
The ban is not a ban on a religion. It is a ban on immigration from countries with issues with terrorism, where there is so little documentation that it is practically impossible to know if any...
The ban is not a ban on a religion. It is a ban on immigration from countries with issues with terrorism, where there is so little documentation that it is practically impossible to know if any immigrant is a criminal/terrorist or not. Most of these countries were majority islamic, and there are other countries that are majority islamic which are not on the list. However, even if the ban were about entry by people of a certain religion and not about countries, the president would still have the legal authority to enact it.
Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
If this is not desired, congress must change the law.
The opposition to the ban came from those who expressed concern with Trump's comments during his campaign about banning Muslim immigrants. The minority opinion explicitly called these comments out...
The opposition to the ban came from those who expressed concern with Trump's comments during his campaign about banning Muslim immigrants. The minority opinion explicitly called these comments out as worrisome, however the majority opinion said that they should be overlooked in this instance, citing matters of "national security".
We may as well ban all people immigrating from Germany because some of them may be neo-nazis who want to perform acts of terrorism. Or France because some of them may be OAS. Or (insert country)...
it is practically impossible to know if any immigrant is a criminal/terrorist or not
We may as well ban all people immigrating from Germany because some of them may be neo-nazis who want to perform acts of terrorism.
Or France because some of them may be OAS.
Or (insert country) because literally every country has domestic terrorists.
This is an absurd slippery slope. Lets just lock up the entire population because some of them do drugs, while we're at it. 🙄
It's been a while since I've looked into this, so I may be misremembering, but iirc the process people go through to become immigrants/refugees is extremely extensive and thorough. The amount of...
It's been a while since I've looked into this, so I may be misremembering, but iirc the process people go through to become immigrants/refugees is extremely extensive and thorough. The amount of terrorist attacks originating from a foreign country on US soil since 9/11 has been extremely small. Those that have managed to successfully enter the country have been all/mostly arrested before causing harm.
It may be "practically impossible", but we've done a pretty damn good job so far.
The term "slippery slope" has somewhat been warped in the public consciousness. Its so often used in online discussions when pointing out a logical fallacy that people have come to only associate...
The term "slippery slope" has somewhat been warped in the public consciousness. Its so often used in online discussions when pointing out a logical fallacy that people have come to only associate it with that. I think most would agree there are chains of events which cause one another to happen as a result. The slippery slope only becomes a fallacy when there is no strong or logical reason to believe that the feared consequences would actually happen. If there is a strong pattern of behavior and evidence to support a certain chain of events it no longer sound to dismiss that view as a slippery slope. So no I don't think slippery slope is always a fallacy but it certainly can be.
So many awful 5-4 decisions coming out of this stolen Supreme Court. Hopefully the next President (in 2 years) will have a supportive Congress and be able to address some of these issues. I would...
So many awful 5-4 decisions coming out of this stolen Supreme Court. Hopefully the next President (in 2 years) will have a supportive Congress and be able to address some of these issues. I would love to see them grow the SC because such fundamental decisions shouldn't be decided by just 9 people.
I'm not from the US, so apply heaps of salt as needed, but from what I gather the left (democrats) in the US were really damn certain they were gonna win the last election. Do you think there's...
I'm not from the US, so apply heaps of salt as needed, but from what I gather the left (democrats) in the US were really damn certain they were gonna win the last election. Do you think there's been enough introspection/change/whatever is needed to win the next election? Or maybe even more basic: what do you think went wrong, leading to this republicans-rule-every-layer-of-government situation that the US is in?
If there's one thing Dems have shown, it's a total lack of willingness to examine their own failings in the wake of the 2016 elections. However there is so much anger and disgust at the Trump...
If there's one thing Dems have shown, it's a total lack of willingness to examine their own failings in the wake of the 2016 elections. However there is so much anger and disgust at the Trump admin that I think there is a strong chance Dems will make gains, a moderate chance they will take the House and a slim chance they will take the Senate too. If they do have a good showing, expect to see Republicans abandoning the Trump admin over the next couple years. We won't see any real substantive change until there is a Democrat in the White House though.
Or maybe even more basic: what do you think went wrong, leading to this republicans-rule-every-layer-of-government situation that the US is in?
This could get really deep into US politics. Do you know the term 'gerrymandering'? That has been one tool that Republicans have used to have an outsized representation in government. There are also campaign finance factors to consider, and no small amount of Democratic ineptitude.
Yeah, I'm familiar with gerrymandering, and have heard that it's a tool that Republicans have used, etc… But I haven't heard anything about how it's possible that it's only Republicans that have...
Yeah, I'm familiar with gerrymandering, and have heard that it's a tool that Republicans have used, etc… But I haven't heard anything about how it's possible that it's only Republicans that have used it. I mean, it seems like a pretty dishonest way of "dividing votes" or whatever, but how come Democrats weren't able (or willing?) to bend this to their will?
It's not that Democrats haven't used it at all, just that circumstances let Republicans use it better. We do re-districting every 10 years and the last time was in 2010. 2010 was a bad year for...
It's not that Democrats haven't used it at all, just that circumstances let Republicans use it better. We do re-districting every 10 years and the last time was in 2010. 2010 was a bad year for Democrats because they did a terrible job selling good policy (Obamacare/ACA). 2010 was also the first year that computers and Big Data let political map makers get very fine levels of detail. This made them much more effective at breaking up constituencies and creating uncompetitive districts.
It should be noted that one of the recent Supreme Court 5-4 decisions was upholding some Republican drawn district lines, crushing any dreams of the SC getting rid of partisan gerrymandering.
It should be noted that one of the recent Supreme Court 5-4 decisions was upholding some Republican drawn district lines, crushing any dreams of the SC getting rid of partisan gerrymandering.
There has been almost no effort by the DNC to recruit the truly passionate progressives and independents that supported Bernie Sanders during the 2016 election. After the DNC shoehorned their...
There has been almost no effort by the DNC to recruit the truly passionate progressives and independents that supported Bernie Sanders during the 2016 election. After the DNC shoehorned their "chosen one" (and even preferred the "Pied Piper" candidate Donald Trump) into winning the primary by using Super Delegates, limiting primary debates and holding those debates on Saturday nights, I can't blame those supporters from being a little apprehensive when it comes to 2018. Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate who ran a poor campaign against one of the most appalling unqualified people to ever run for public office. As soon as the DNC has some leadership that will stop playing at identity politics and actually support the working class and poor in this country...those same supporters will destroy the spineless GOP candidates all over the United States. Until that happens we all will have to live with the erosion of democracy, civil discourse, class, the environment, our standing in the world and eventually our economy as Trump and his cronies laugh all the way to the bank through 2024.
I'm from the NL, so this is foreign policy to me. I find it bizarre that there's no limit on this. I understand there might be cases where you could think it's a good idea for the president to be...
I'm from the NL, so this is foreign policy to me. I find it bizarre that there's no limit on this. I understand there might be cases where you could think it's a good idea for the president to be able to veto, but then make it the law that he can block any immigrants from x country for y amount of time (or until congress/whoever has a chance to discuss). Not this "we're giving an incredible amount of power, no limits and no checks & balances, to the ruler". I mean regardless of if you agree with Trump & his policy, consider that whoever is next for presidency would also have this power. It just seems common sense to think "how would the worst ruler possible misuse this" and this is pretty damn sensitive to that.
OT: archive link for EU friends; second OT: this whole comment might be my personal political thoughts talking, I'm very opposed to this type of border/nation thinking as is.
Since you might not be familiar with executive orders, allow me a chance to explain. An executive order isn't a law. It's basically the president saying, to everyone in the government, I want you...
but then make it the law that he can block any immigrants from x country for y amount of time (or until congress/whoever has a chance to discuss).
Since you might not be familiar with executive orders, allow me a chance to explain. An executive order isn't a law. It's basically the president saying, to everyone in the government, I want you to do "x". It's not allowed to violate law (he couldn't make an executive order to say, kill a specific citizen), therefore the courts sometimes have to interpret whether it violates law or not.
Executive orders are essentially the same thing as a CEO of a company telling a division that their new priority is (x). In that respect, you can't make an executive order that tells citizens who are not employed by the government to do anything.
Traditionally executive orders have been used sparingly, and primarily for administrative reasons - moving people around offices, setting policies for the military, moving certain funds around, appointing people to office, creation of government entities, etc. There are some significant executive orders in history such as FDRs creation of civil works which expanded the purview of executive orders but it really wasn't until Obama that executive orders really expanded (probably because he was forced to use them because he had an uncooperative congress).
Unfortunately, Trump has continued this expansion of executive orders into a variety of new fields or uses. He's found ways to gridlock or stop laws he doesn't like (his very first executive order against the affordable care act, for example), found ways to divert funds that really shouldn't be touched to fund unpopular projects (the wall), created this whole immigration mess, fired a variety of enforcement individuals (FBI), and a whole lot more.
We're probably headed down a slippery slope where executive orders will soon have so much power that we'll end up in eternal gridlock as anything congress passes will end up being stopped by executive order by the sitting president (or the next).
Maybe I'm misreading the ruling, but doesn't it state that the president has the power to enact a ban like this, but they are yet to rule on if the ban itself is constitutional/legal?
Maybe I'm misreading the ruling, but doesn't it state that the president has the power to enact a ban like this, but they are yet to rule on if the ban itself is constitutional/legal?
You can have the authority to order someone to do something unconstitutional. It is still unconstitutional, but you have the authority. I.e. it's an action within the range of the law, but the law...
You can have the authority to order someone to do something unconstitutional. It is still unconstitutional, but you have the authority. I.e. it's an action within the range of the law, but the law itself may be unconstitutional.
Yes, that was my reading of it. It's within the power for the POTUS to enact a ban of non-US citizens entering the country, as long as that ban does not violate the constitution or other laws and...
Yes, that was my reading of it. It's within the power for the POTUS to enact a ban of non-US citizens entering the country, as long as that ban does not violate the constitution or other laws and human rights that have previously been ruled on.
It's important to point out that executive orders have to be compliant with all federal law (and precedence), not just the constitution. Many executive orders have been cut down or neutered at a...
It's important to point out that executive orders have to be compliant with all federal law (and precedence), not just the constitution.
Many executive orders have been cut down or neutered at a later point in time by SCOTUS or other federal courts.
Wire-tapping American citizens was unconstitutional, until it was for National Security.
Drone bombing American citizens was unconstitutional, until it was for National Security.
Banning immigrants of a certain religion was unconstitutional, until it was for National Security.
Is "slippery slope" still a fallacy?
It never was a fallacy. The Patriot Act was a power grab that was an avalanche rather than a slippery slope.
What is happening now is the consequence of a long standing malignant disease that put party politics before the rights of people or the good of the nation as a whole.
The Citizens United decision gave this disease fuel and oxygen for unlimited growth to kill the host (the electorate) and continue to survive. SCOTUS as a result is now a political body.
It was signed without anyone having time to read the bill...almost as if it was written ahead of time and it was just pulled out at the most opportune moment; in the wake of the September 11th attacks.
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2009/03/02/congress-had-no-time-to-read-the-usa-patriot-act/
The modern reality is that most house members simply do not have time to read the bills they are signing into law. Their constituents will be calling them and telling them to support (or not) a bill as soon as the news picks it up and publishes some snippet explaining it.
I'm sure they have a team of legal experts combing over the bills for potential threats to their re-election, as well.
The ban is not a ban on a religion. It is a ban on immigration from countries with issues with terrorism, where there is so little documentation that it is practically impossible to know if any immigrant is a criminal/terrorist or not. Most of these countries were majority islamic, and there are other countries that are majority islamic which are not on the list. However, even if the ban were about entry by people of a certain religion and not about countries, the president would still have the legal authority to enact it.
Here is the relevant section of law (8 U.S. Code § 1182 (f) )
If this is not desired, congress must change the law.
The opposition to the ban came from those who expressed concern with Trump's comments during his campaign about banning Muslim immigrants. The minority opinion explicitly called these comments out as worrisome, however the majority opinion said that they should be overlooked in this instance, citing matters of "national security".
We may as well ban all people immigrating from Germany because some of them may be neo-nazis who want to perform acts of terrorism.
Or France because some of them may be OAS.
Or (insert country) because literally every country has domestic terrorists.
This is an absurd slippery slope. Lets just lock up the entire population because some of them do drugs, while we're at it. 🙄
It's been a while since I've looked into this, so I may be misremembering, but iirc the process people go through to become immigrants/refugees is extremely extensive and thorough. The amount of terrorist attacks originating from a foreign country on US soil since 9/11 has been extremely small. Those that have managed to successfully enter the country have been all/mostly arrested before causing harm.
It may be "practically impossible", but we've done a pretty damn good job so far.
The term "slippery slope" has somewhat been warped in the public consciousness. Its so often used in online discussions when pointing out a logical fallacy that people have come to only associate it with that. I think most would agree there are chains of events which cause one another to happen as a result. The slippery slope only becomes a fallacy when there is no strong or logical reason to believe that the feared consequences would actually happen. If there is a strong pattern of behavior and evidence to support a certain chain of events it no longer sound to dismiss that view as a slippery slope. So no I don't think slippery slope is always a fallacy but it certainly can be.
So many awful 5-4 decisions coming out of this stolen Supreme Court. Hopefully the next President (in 2 years) will have a supportive Congress and be able to address some of these issues. I would love to see them grow the SC because such fundamental decisions shouldn't be decided by just 9 people.
I'm not from the US, so apply heaps of salt as needed, but from what I gather the left (democrats) in the US were really damn certain they were gonna win the last election. Do you think there's been enough introspection/change/whatever is needed to win the next election? Or maybe even more basic: what do you think went wrong, leading to this republicans-rule-every-layer-of-government situation that the US is in?
If there's one thing Dems have shown, it's a total lack of willingness to examine their own failings in the wake of the 2016 elections. However there is so much anger and disgust at the Trump admin that I think there is a strong chance Dems will make gains, a moderate chance they will take the House and a slim chance they will take the Senate too. If they do have a good showing, expect to see Republicans abandoning the Trump admin over the next couple years. We won't see any real substantive change until there is a Democrat in the White House though.
This could get really deep into US politics. Do you know the term 'gerrymandering'? That has been one tool that Republicans have used to have an outsized representation in government. There are also campaign finance factors to consider, and no small amount of Democratic ineptitude.
Yeah, I'm familiar with gerrymandering, and have heard that it's a tool that Republicans have used, etc… But I haven't heard anything about how it's possible that it's only Republicans that have used it. I mean, it seems like a pretty dishonest way of "dividing votes" or whatever, but how come Democrats weren't able (or willing?) to bend this to their will?
It's not that Democrats haven't used it at all, just that circumstances let Republicans use it better. We do re-districting every 10 years and the last time was in 2010. 2010 was a bad year for Democrats because they did a terrible job selling good policy (Obamacare/ACA). 2010 was also the first year that computers and Big Data let political map makers get very fine levels of detail. This made them much more effective at breaking up constituencies and creating uncompetitive districts.
Thank you, that helps make it a lot more understandable!
It should be noted that one of the recent Supreme Court 5-4 decisions was upholding some Republican drawn district lines, crushing any dreams of the SC getting rid of partisan gerrymandering.
There has been almost no effort by the DNC to recruit the truly passionate progressives and independents that supported Bernie Sanders during the 2016 election. After the DNC shoehorned their "chosen one" (and even preferred the "Pied Piper" candidate Donald Trump) into winning the primary by using Super Delegates, limiting primary debates and holding those debates on Saturday nights, I can't blame those supporters from being a little apprehensive when it comes to 2018. Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate who ran a poor campaign against one of the most appalling unqualified people to ever run for public office. As soon as the DNC has some leadership that will stop playing at identity politics and actually support the working class and poor in this country...those same supporters will destroy the spineless GOP candidates all over the United States. Until that happens we all will have to live with the erosion of democracy, civil discourse, class, the environment, our standing in the world and eventually our economy as Trump and his cronies laugh all the way to the bank through 2024.
/rant
Sonia Sotomayor Delivers Fiery Dissent in Travel Ban Case
Gosh, I love this woman.
I wonder if Trump is going to back pedal on North Koreans being on the list now that he is chummy with Kim?
I'm from the NL, so this is foreign policy to me. I find it bizarre that there's no limit on this. I understand there might be cases where you could think it's a good idea for the president to be able to veto, but then make it the law that he can block any immigrants from x country for y amount of time (or until congress/whoever has a chance to discuss). Not this "we're giving an incredible amount of power, no limits and no checks & balances, to the ruler". I mean regardless of if you agree with Trump & his policy, consider that whoever is next for presidency would also have this power. It just seems common sense to think "how would the worst ruler possible misuse this" and this is pretty damn sensitive to that.
OT: archive link for EU friends; second OT: this whole comment might be my personal political thoughts talking, I'm very opposed to this type of border/nation thinking as is.
Since you might not be familiar with executive orders, allow me a chance to explain. An executive order isn't a law. It's basically the president saying, to everyone in the government, I want you to do "x". It's not allowed to violate law (he couldn't make an executive order to say, kill a specific citizen), therefore the courts sometimes have to interpret whether it violates law or not.
Executive orders are essentially the same thing as a CEO of a company telling a division that their new priority is (x). In that respect, you can't make an executive order that tells citizens who are not employed by the government to do anything.
Traditionally executive orders have been used sparingly, and primarily for administrative reasons - moving people around offices, setting policies for the military, moving certain funds around, appointing people to office, creation of government entities, etc. There are some significant executive orders in history such as FDRs creation of civil works which expanded the purview of executive orders but it really wasn't until Obama that executive orders really expanded (probably because he was forced to use them because he had an uncooperative congress).
Unfortunately, Trump has continued this expansion of executive orders into a variety of new fields or uses. He's found ways to gridlock or stop laws he doesn't like (his very first executive order against the affordable care act, for example), found ways to divert funds that really shouldn't be touched to fund unpopular projects (the wall), created this whole immigration mess, fired a variety of enforcement individuals (FBI), and a whole lot more.
We're probably headed down a slippery slope where executive orders will soon have so much power that we'll end up in eternal gridlock as anything congress passes will end up being stopped by executive order by the sitting president (or the next).
Maybe I'm misreading the ruling, but doesn't it state that the president has the power to enact a ban like this, but they are yet to rule on if the ban itself is constitutional/legal?
I don't think I understand the difference? Care to explain what you mean?
You can have the authority to order someone to do something unconstitutional. It is still unconstitutional, but you have the authority. I.e. it's an action within the range of the law, but the law itself may be unconstitutional.
Yes, that was my reading of it. It's within the power for the POTUS to enact a ban of non-US citizens entering the country, as long as that ban does not violate the constitution or other laws and human rights that have previously been ruled on.
It's important to point out that executive orders have to be compliant with all federal law (and precedence), not just the constitution.
Many executive orders have been cut down or neutered at a later point in time by SCOTUS or other federal courts.