The US Supreme Court has, in the ruling on the Janus v. AFSCME, that mandatory fees to trade unions in the public secture (closed shops) as unconstitutional.
The ruling could and probably will have a big effect on the size and power of the US Union movement, and therefor could decrees the funding and organizing strength that it gives almost exclusively to the democratic party.
Looking at what has happened in the State of Wisconsin, when a similer law was changed in 2011, only some members left in the first year, but over 5 years 55% of members left, and the unions dropped there membership price to avoid more losses.
What impact will it have?
probably not much on the presidential race, I think that is dominated by TV debates and funding comes from so many different places that the union money only has a small impact. but on lower down the ballot races, e.g. congress or state house, this could make a difference in a number of seats, probably not by November of this year but in 2020, and 2022, 2024. this could be big, and worth factoring in to betting or predictions.
Caveats:
This only applys to government workers not the privet secture, (US privet secture unionization rate is only 3.5%)
This will, no doubt, be appealed, and every effort to overturn or delay will be made.
The US Supreme Court has, in the ruling on the Janus v. AFSCME, that mandatory fees to trade unions in the public secture (closed shops) as unconstitutional.
The ruling could and probably will have a big effect on the size and power of the US Union movement, and therefor could decrees the funding and organizing strength that it gives almost exclusively to the democratic party.
Looking at what has happened in the State of Wisconsin, when a similer law was changed in 2011, only some members left in the first year, but over 5 years 55% of members left, and the unions dropped there membership price to avoid more losses.
What impact will it have?
probably not much on the presidential race, I think that is dominated by TV debates and funding comes from so many different places that the union money only has a small impact. but on lower down the ballot races, e.g. congress or state house, this could make a difference in a number of seats, probably not by November of this year but in 2020, and 2022, 2024. this could be big, and worth factoring in to betting or predictions.
Caveats:
This only applys to government workers not the privet secture, (US privet secture unionization rate is only 3.5%)
This will, no doubt, be appealed, and every effort to overturn or delay will be made.
You don’t really get to appeal SC rulings. And a change in the Court’s makeup that might lead to this being overturned is a decade off.
' London’s expensive property prices are leading to an exodus of people in their early 30s from the capital, according to a report showing the economy of Britain’s biggest city increasingly dominated by low-skill jobs.
A report from the Resolution Foundation thinktank said the blow to living standards caused by high housing costs meant more people were leaving London than arriving from the rest of the UK.
While London’s overall population has grown by 1.6 million since the only region of the UK where the typical household had no net property wealth. '
' Job growth has largely been in low-paying, low-productivity sectors, such as hospitality (up 35%) and administrative services (up 29%). Even where employment had increased in higher-paying, high-productivity sectors, such as ICT and professional services, those sectors had seen a significant slump in productivity (down 5% and 2.5% respectively.)
As a result, London’s productivity had actually fallen over the last decade by 1%, compared to an increase of 1.5% across the UK as a whole. '
' People assume London’s economy has been running away from the rest of the UK since the financial crisis. But London’s economic growth is purely down tivity, with troubling consequences for pay and living standards. '
Isn't it always the case that young people move to London in their twenties and rent and have fun (at the most buying a flat) then in their 30s once they start a family use their London wage to buy a larger family home in the Home Counties and commute in to work?
So who used to buy all those houses in London suburbia ?
London suburbia is demographically closer to the Home Counties than Inner London admittedly, homes are significantly cheaper though wages are lower. The property owning London lower middle class and skilled working class is concentrated in the London suburbs.
The London suburbs also had a far bigger Leave vote in 2016 and a bigger Tory vote in 2017 than Inner London
But home ownership in outer London has been falling rapidly which must mean that the young middle classes are being squeezed out.
And moving to the cheaper Home Counties like Essex and Kent reinforcing my original point
I think Manchester proper is about half the size but the whole surrounding area has a larger population, whatever that proves.
I work in Manchester (and occasionally live there) ergo is the second city of the UK after Sheffield.
I think between George Osborne's Northern Powerhouse and the IRA helping to launch a massive regeneration project Manchester has supplanted Birmingham.
I think City's Etihand Campus helps too.
chortle
Brum is currently a sea of cranes
Mankies need to get out more
Birmingham is definitely back on the up. Five years ago it seemed to be in a long term spiral of decline.
Moved here ca. 5 years ago and, while pleasantly surprised by the place, the improvement has been immense. Would recommend.
' London’s expensive property prices are leading to an exodus of people in their early 30s from the capital, according to a report showing the economy of Britain’s biggest city increasingly dominated by low-skill jobs.
A report from the Resolution Foundation thinktank said the blow to living standards caused by high housing costs meant more people were leaving London than arriving from the rest of the UK.
While London’s overall population has grown by 1.6 million since the only region of the UK where the typical household had no net property wealth. '
' Job growth has largely been in low-paying, low-productivity sectors, such as hospitality (up 35%) and administrative services (up 29%). Even where employment had increased in higher-paying, high-productivity sectors, such as ICT and professional services, those sectors had seen a significant slump in productivity (down 5% and 2.5% respectively.)
As a result, London’s productivity had actually fallen over the last decade by 1%, compared to an increase of 1.5% across the UK as a whole. '
' People assume London’s economy has been running away from the rest of the UK since the financial crisis. But London’s economic growth is purely down tivity, with troubling consequences for pay and living standards. '
Isn't it always the case that young people move to London in their twenties and rent and have fun (at the most buying a flat) then in their 30s once they start a family use their London wage to buy a larger family home in the Home Counties and commute in to work?
So who used to buy all those houses in London suburbia ?
London suburbia is demographically closer to the Home Counties than Inner London admittedly, homes are significantly cheaper though wages are lower. The property owning London lower middle class and skilled working class is concentrated in the London suburbs.
The London suburbs also had a far bigger Leave vote in 2016 and a bigger Tory vote in 2017 than Inner London
But home ownership in outer London has been falling rapidly which must mean that the young middle classes are being squeezed out.
And moving to the cheaper Home Counties like Essex and Kent reinforcing my original point
Which means that London suburbia is no longer inhabited by home owning middle classes as it once was.
England now down to 9.6 last matched on Betfair for the tournament. I'm still humming and hawing over the optimal time to lay them. My guess is that they will beat a Belgian team that is resting key players, so after that?
If you are relying on the conventional wisdom that England is always too short in the market then you may be out of date. Tissue Price will know more than me, but I think these days the football markets are shaped by some big players with even bigger computers.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
As an American it would be illegal for him to bet.
I'd expect the Casey to be overturned by the end of Trump's first term
I see a US Supreme Court judge is retiring (I seem to recall he had announced he would this year). It feels so strange that there are presumably ones trying their damnedest not to die at the 'wrong' time so the wrong party gets to pick who the replacement is. And what pressure there must be on others not to retire at the wrong time!
Conservative Home's June Tory membership survey sent out today has head to head match ups in the next Tory leader poll between Boris, Hunt, Gove and Javid. Should be interesting when the results come out in the next few days.
Meanwhile in Macron’s France.... twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=21
Seems a bit of an over reaction just cos some young oink didn’t call him mr president.
I thought that particular incident made Macron look a bit silly.
It made him seem prickly or arrogant, but in all fairness I'd think you have to be pretty arrogant to set up your own political movement, defeat the established parties, and then a majority in the parliament.
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.
He has been viewed as a moderate though, not as right wing Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. That’s why his vote is seen as a swing one. Maltby herself is a Conservative (albeit a moderate one). A moderate British Tory would probably be seen as a leftie by American Republicans.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
Given the incredible and repeatedly ruled illegal efforts that states have taken to make abortion a practical impossibility I'd say 20 states making it flat out illegal would be an under count.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.
Americans need to learn how to respect each other's opinions again, as they did until about 20 years ago.
I see a US Supreme Court judge is retiring (I seem to recall he had announced he would this year). It feels so strange that there are presumably ones trying their damnedest not to die at the 'wrong' time so the wrong party gets to pick who the replacement is. And what pressure there must be on others not to retire at the wrong time!
Sandra Day O'Connor publicly exclaimed her disappointment and frustration that she wouldn't be able to take retirement when she thought Gore had won the 2000 election.
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.
He has been viewed as a moderate though, not as right wing Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. That’s why his vote is seen as a swing one. Maltby herself is a Conservative (albeit a moderate one). A moderate British Tory would probably be seen as a leftie by American Republicans.
That he is moderate on some things, and thus a swing vote, does not make anger at him for swinging the other way justified. If he was named by a famously mythologised Republican President better to be grateful for the times he broke ranks than angry at the times he didn't.
I would agree with you about Tories and americans. It's not unique of course, and I somethings think online lefties and righties get a bit overly supportive or angry at supposed foreign counterparts (or opponents), as what makes a Liberal party in one country may not match up with a Liberal party in another, and so on and so forth. It'd be very silly for a Conservative supporter here to automatically assume they would fit with the Republicans, or that a Labour party person would find common cause with everything with the Democrats. They might, it would depend on the individual, but the 'big tents' of the parties have not always aligned perfectly.
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?
One of the specifics that does indeed need answering. The write up talks of being able to opt out of bits of it in exchange for volunteer work, but what if you refuse that as well? Other places have national service, I assume the EU and ECHR are ok with it in principle.
According to the BBC the idea has 60% approval (although young people are less keen)
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.
He has been viewed as a moderate though, not as right wing Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. That’s why his vote is seen as a swing one. Maltby herself is a Conservative (albeit a moderate one). A moderate British Tory would probably be seen as a leftie by American Republicans.
That he is moderate on some things, and thus a swing vote, does not make anger at him for swinging the other way justified. If he was named by a famously mythologised Republican President better to be grateful for the times he broke ranks than angry at the times he didn't.
I would agree with you about Tories and americans. It's not unique of course, and I somethings think online lefties and righties get a bit overly supportive or angry at supposed foreign counterparts (or opponents), as what makes a Liberal party in one country may not match up with a Liberal party in another, and so on and so forth. It'd be very silly for a Conservative supporter here to automatically assume they would fit with the Republicans, or that a Labour party person would find common cause with everything with the Democrats. They might, it would depend on the individual, but the 'big tents' of the parties have not always aligned perfectly.
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him. Gorsuch is a massive Conservative, that doesn’t stop Dems saying ‘f**k Neil Gorsuch’ nearly every time one of his opinions comes down. American Conservatives get angry with the liberal justices when they give opinions that they don’t like as well. Given the enormity of the decisions he’s sided with the Conservative justices on this term, I totally understand why Dems are angry with him on the travel ban and the gerrymandering cases. I would consider myself well to Left of the Dems on most issues: so I’m not assuming I would fit in with them. I would have voted for Clinton had I been American though in 2016, even if she’s to the right of me on a number of issues.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.
Americans need to learn how to respect each other's opinions again, as they did until about 20 years ago.
Those opinions have consequences for people’s lives though, which is precisely why politics is so divisive there (and to a lesser degree, here as well). Especially since it’s on hot button cultural issues.
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?
One of the specifics that does indeed need answering. The write up talks of being able to opt out of bits of it in exchange for volunteer work, but what if you refuse that as well? Other places have national service, I assume the EU and ECHR are ok with it in principle.
According to the BBC the idea has 60% approval (although young people are less keen)
Middle class Parisians busting themselves on assault courses while illegal immigrants smoke dope and burn cars. Winning combination,
Talking of national service, apparently Tottenham’s South Korean player has to go and do his in the next year or two. The only way out was winning the World Cup (not happening now) leaving last chance by winning the Asian championships.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.
Americans need to learn how to respect each other's opinions again, as they did until about 20 years ago.
Those opinions have consequences for people’s lives though, which is precisely why politics is so divisive there (and to a lesser degree, here as well). Especially since it’s on hot button cultural issues.
Except they frequently don't have consequences for opponents lives. Opponents of e.g. gay rights may feel their beliefs are infringed if others are treated equally but their lives are no different.
If people could accept others think, believe and act differently to them and that's ok then the cultural issues would be a lot easier to sort out.
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?
One of the specifics that does indeed need answering. The write up talks of being able to opt out of bits of it in exchange for volunteer work, but what if you refuse that as well? Other places have national service, I assume the EU and ECHR are ok with it in principle.
According to the BBC the idea has 60% approval (although young people are less keen)
Germany had and Switzer;and has jail as the only option if you refuse both, thoiugh a very mild open prison - I had a colleague who slept at the prison but continued in his daytime job in the pharma industry: these detention sentences exist so that people don't necessarily lose their jobs over relatively minor offences. The pretty socially enlightened management of Novartis felt it was none of their business what he did outside working hours, including serving a detention sentence.
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.
He has been viewed as a moderate though, not as right wing Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. That’s why his vote is seen as a swing one. Maltby herself is a Conservative (albeit a moderate one). A moderate British Tory would probably be seen as a leftie by American Republicans.
That he is moderate on some things, and thus a swing vote, does not make anger at him for swinging the other way justified. If he was named by a famously mythologised Republican President better to be grateful for the times he broke ranks than angry at the times he didn't.
I would agree with you aalways aligned perfectly.
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opinions are 'justified', my language was poor on that, but what it is not, in the terms it is described there, is reasonable, as far as I can see it. The anger seems to be specifically that he is not breaking ranks more often, rather than the mere fact that he is a conservative justice.
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
Holder Vs Shelby County is one the all time worst Supreme Court decisions from a judicial reasoning point of view.
Kennedy's concurrence on it will be how he is remembered.
I wonder how he wants to be remembered. I've seem him referred to as the father of constitutional gay rights, which one would assume is how he'd prefer to be remembered, but perhaps he would welcome a more complex view in that both sides will condemn and praise various cases he was key to.
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?
One of the specifics that does indeed need answering. The write up talks of being able to opt out of bits of it in exchange for volunteer work, but what if you refuse that as well? Other places have national service, I assume the EU and ECHR are ok with it in principle.
According to the BBC the idea has 60% approval (although young people are less keen)
Germany had and Switzer;and has jail as the only option if you refuse both, thoiugh a very mild open prison - I had a colleague who slept at the prison but continued in his daytime job in the pharma industry: these detention sentences exist so that people don't necessarily lose their jobs over relatively minor offences. The pretty socially enlightened management of Novartis felt it was none of their business what he did outside working hours, including serving a detention sentence.
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opinions are 'justified', my language was poor on that, but what it is not, in the terms it is described there, is reasonable, as far as I can see it. The anger seems to be specifically that he is not breaking ranks more often, rather than the mere fact that he is a conservative justice.
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
Re Maltby, from what she said it’s ‘how dare he side with conservative justices’ on the issue of the travel ban, not how dare he side with the Conservative justices on any decision ever. I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices though - Republicans have been unhappy when Kennedy has sided with liberals. They were also unhappy with Roberts siding with liberals on the occasions he has. If you think about the perspective of both, I can understand both Dems and Republicans reactions. You’re never going to unhappy when a decision doesn’t go your way.
Dems know that they’re going to get a massively conservative justice that’s not going to stop them (nor should it) for being not too happy at Kennedy’s opinions on various cases this term. They shouldn’t not be angry on his decision re gerrymandering just because he say, sided with the liberal justices on gay marriage.
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.
He has been viewed as a moderate though, not as right wing Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. That’s why his vote is seen as a swing one. Maltby herself is a Conservative (albeit a moderate one). A moderate British Tory would probably be seen as a leftie by American Republicans.
That he is moderate on some things, and thus a swing vote, does not make anger at him for swinging the other way justified. If he was named by a famously mythologised Republican President better to be grateful for the times he broke ranks than angry at the times he didn't.
I would agree with you about Tories and americans. It's not unique of course, and I somethings think online lefties and righties get a bit overly supportive or angry at supposed foreign counterparts (or opponents), as what makes a Liberal party in one country may not match up with a Liberal party in another, and so on and so forth. It'd be very silly for a Conservative supporter here to automatically assume they would fit with the Republicans, or that a Labour party person would find common cause with everything with the Democrats. They might, it would depend on the individual, but the 'big tents' of the parties have not always aligned perfectly.
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him. Gorsuch is a massive Conservative, that doesn’t stop Dems saying ‘f**k Neil Gorsuch’ nearly every time one of his opinions comes down. American Conservatives get angry with the liberal justices when they give opinions that they don’t like as well. Given the enormity of the decisions he’s sided with the Conservative justices on this term, I totally understand why Dems are angry with him on the travel ban and the gerrymandering cases. I would consider myself well to Left of the Dems on most issues: so I’m not assuming I would fit in with them. I would have voted for Clinton had I been American though in 2016, even if she’s to the right of me on a number of issues.
Kennedy was always a conservative, save that he voted with the liberals on gay rights issues (and indeed, wrote their opinions).
But, the new Justice will be a hardline conservative.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.
Americans need to learn how to respect each other's opinions again, as they did until about 20 years ago.
Those opinions have consequences for people’s lives though, which is precisely why politics is so divisive there (and to a lesser degree, here as well). Especially since it’s on hot button cultural issues.
Except they frequently don't have consequences for opponents lives. Opponents of e.g. gay rights may feel their beliefs are infringed if others are treated equally but their lives are no different.
If people could accept others think, believe and act differently to them and that's ok then the cultural issues would be a lot easier to sort out.
Of course political decisions have consequences for people’s lives, if they didn’t they would be pointless. If say, gay marriage was no longer legal it would affect people’s lives.
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opinions are 'justified', my language was poor on that, but what it is not, in the terms it is described there, is reasonable, as far as I can see it. The anger seems to be specifically that he is not breaking ranks more often, rather than the mere fact that he is a conservative justice.
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices though
It certainly wouldn't, generally. My issue was with the reasoning behind the anger being 'He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term'. If they are angry at conservative justices being conservative it should be constant, but that statement suggests to me disappointment in him specifically for being conservative (when that is apparently what he was) too much. I regard it as mildly hypocritical because it makes it look like they are holding him to a different standard to the others when he sides with the conservatives, when they should expect that, and be pleasantly surprised when he doesn't. Or didn't rather.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
Given the incredible and repeatedly ruled illegal efforts that states have taken to make abortion a practical impossibility I'd say 20 states making it flat out illegal would be an under count.
Okay then.
How about £50 bet with loser donating to PB ?
If 20+ US states have banned abortion by the end of 2019 I'll pay.
If under 20 US states have baned abortion by the end of 2019 you pay.
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american bet not.
I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices though
It certainly wouldn't, generally. My issue was with the reasoning behind the anger being 'He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term'. If they are angry at conservative justices being conservative it should be constant, but that statement suggests to me disappointment in him specifically for being conservative (when that is apparently what he was) too much. I regard it as mildly hypocritical because it makes it look like they are holding him to a different standard to the others when he sides with the conservatives, when they should expect that, and be pleasantly surprised when he doesn't. Or didn't rather.
They are angry he sided them with them on pretty much all the 5-4 decisions (IIRC), because they wanted him to side with them on specific cases (esp gerrymandering and the travel ban). This is apparently the most times he sided with conservatives on 5-4 decisions since 2005. I think they do hold him to a different standard because they’ve seen him as moderates because of his rulings on abortion/reproductive issues, gay marriage et al.
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opinions are 'justified', my language was poor on that, but what it is not, in the terms it is described there, is reasonable, as far as I can see it. The anger seems to be specifically that he is not breaking ranks more often, rather than the mere fact that he is a conservative justice.
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
Re Maltby, from what she said it’s ‘how dare he side with conservative justices’ on the issue of the travel ban, not how dare he side with the Conservative justices on any decision ever. I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices though - Republicans ha
Dems know that they’re going to get a massively conservative justice that’s not going to stop them (nor should it) for being not too happy at Kennedy’s opinions on various cases this term. They shouldn’t not be angry on his decision re gerrymandering just because he say, sided with the liberal justices on gay marriage.
However, Kennedy at least gave the Dems (and Kate Maltby) some of the things they like, rather than none of them.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
Given the incredible and repeatedly ruled illegal efforts that states have taken to make abortion a practical impossibility I'd say 20 states making it flat out illegal would be an under count.
Okay then.
How about £50 bet with loser donating to PB ?
If 20+ US states have banned abortion by the end of 2019 I'll pay.
If under 20 US states have baned abortion by the end of 2019 you pay.
Time frame too tight for me given that the Dems are actually showing a spine on this and may drag it out. I had assumed they would roll over.
In paractical terms a lot of states might not actually ban abortion, they'll just pile on all the bullshit that had been previously ruled illegal and de facto ban abortion.
I don't think either of us wants to have to do a state by state search of functioning abortion facilities to see which way the bet falls.
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opinions are 'justified', my language was poor on that, but what it is not, in the terms it is described there, is reasonable, as far as I can see it. The anger seems to be specifically that he is not breaking ranks more often, rather than the mere fact that he is a conservative justice.
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
Re Maltby, from what she said it’s ‘how dare he side with conservative justices’ on the issue of the travel ban, not how dare he side with the Conservative justices on any decision ever. I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices though - Republicans ha
Dems know that they’re going to get a massively conservative justice that’s not going to stop them (nor should it) for being not too happy at Kennedy’s opinions on various cases this term. They shouldn’t not be angry on his decision re gerrymandering just because he say, sided with the liberal justices on gay marriage.
However, Kennedy at least gave the Dems (and Kate Maltby) some of the things they like, rather than none of them.
That’s why they are literally in despair about his retirement even though they are angry with him.
Today's Tesco Strawberry score is once again a boring eight:
Angus Perthshire Fife Staffordshire Cambridgeshire Herefordshire West Sussex Kent
At the risk of sounding uniformed, and only an occasional reader of political betting, what exactly is the 'Tesco Strawberry score'? I have an image of somebody driving madly to every county in the UK to find Tesco's that have sold out of strawberry! but i am guessing that's not it?
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opi
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
Re Maltby, from what she said it’s ‘how dare he side with conservative justices’ on the issue of the travel ban, not how dare he side with the Conservative justices on any decision ever. I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices though - Republicans ha
Dems know that they’re going to get a massively conservative justice that’s not going to stop them (nor should it) for being not too happy at Kennedy’s opinions on various cases this term. They shouldn’t not be angry on his decision re gerrymandering just because he say, sided with the liberal justices on gay marriage.
However, Kennedy at least gave the Dems (and Kate Maltby) some of the things they like, rather than none of them.
That’s why they are literally in despair about his retirement even though they are angry with him.
Kennedy is a very old man. He is surely entitled to retire.
Today's Tesco Strawberry score is once again a boring eight:
Angus Perthshire Fife Staffordshire Cambridgeshire Herefordshire West Sussex Kent
At the risk of sounding uniformed, and only an occasional reader of political betting, what exactly is the 'Tesco Strawberry score'? I have an image of somebody driving madly to every county in the UK to find Tesco's that have sold out of strawberry! but i am guessing that's not it?
Its the location of origin of British strawberries in a Tesco I visit.
Its purpose is to give an indication of how likely or not we are to have 'crops rotting in the fields because there are no workers to pick them'.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.
Americans need to learn how to respect each other's opinions again, as they did until about 20 years ago.
Those opinions have consequences for people’s lives though, which is precisely why politics is so divisive there (and to a lesser degree, here as well). Especially since it’s on hot button cultural issues.
Except they frequently don't have consequences for opponents lives. Opponents of e.g. gay rights may feel their beliefs are infringed if others are treated equally but their lives are no different.
If people could accept others think, believe and act differently to them and that's ok then the cultural issues would be a lot easier to sort out.
Of course political decisions have consequences for people’s lives, if they didn’t they would be pointless. If say, gay marriage was no longer legal it would affect people’s lives.
They have consequences for some people's lives, not some other people's lives.
If gay marriage was no longer legal it would affect gays. It wouldn't affect the lives of opponents of gay marriage though.
The problem is people wanting to affect other people's lives, not people wanting change for their own.
Comments
The ruling could and probably will have a big effect on the size and power of the US Union movement, and therefor could decrees the funding and organizing strength that it gives almost exclusively to the democratic party.
Looking at what has happened in the State of Wisconsin, when a similer law was changed in 2011, only some members left in the first year, but over 5 years 55% of members left, and the unions dropped there membership price to avoid more losses.
What impact will it have?
probably not much on the presidential race, I think that is dominated by TV debates and funding comes from so many different places that the union money only has a small impact. but on lower down the ballot races, e.g. congress or state house, this could make a difference in a number of seats, probably not by November of this year but in 2020, and 2022, 2024. this could be big, and worth factoring in to betting or predictions.
Caveats:
This only applys to government workers not the privet secture, (US privet secture unionization rate is only 3.5%)
This will, no doubt, be appealed, and every effort to overturn or delay will be made.
And a change in the Court’s makeup that might lead to this being overturned is a decade off.
https://twitter.com/shearm/status/1012033297369706497
Which was what the report was saying.
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
https://twitter.com/schnapp4liberty/status/1012034756148711426?s=21
Since yesterday, Dems on twitter have not been happy with Kennedy, it must be said. He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term. I also saw this article just now: https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1012036376576118784?s=21
I'd expect the Casey to be overturned by the end of Trump's first term
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=21
Is that Jack Daniels?
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/06/should-williamson-get-the-defence-spending-rise-he-wants-plus-introducing-next-tory-leader-run-offs-our-monthly-survey-is-out.html
Https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/world-cup-stoppage-time-is-wildly-inaccurate/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Hmmm. That might need more work.
She, of course, then got to rule that he hadn't.
I would agree with you about Tories and americans. It's not unique of course, and I somethings think online lefties and righties get a bit overly supportive or angry at supposed foreign counterparts (or opponents), as what makes a Liberal party in one country may not match up with a Liberal party in another, and so on and so forth. It'd be very silly for a Conservative supporter here to automatically assume they would fit with the Republicans, or that a Labour party person would find common cause with everything with the Democrats. They might, it would depend on the individual, but the 'big tents' of the parties have not always aligned perfectly.
Does anyone know what happens if you mix greek yoghurt with salt?
According to the BBC the idea has 60% approval (although young people are less keen)
https://twitter.com/groomb/status/1012048887572520962?s=21
Kennedy's concurrence on it will be how he is remembered.
If people could accept others think, believe and act differently to them and that's ok then the cultural issues would be a lot easier to sort out.
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opinions are 'justified', my language was poor on that, but what it is not, in the terms it is described there, is reasonable, as far as I can see it. The anger seems to be specifically that he is not breaking ranks more often, rather than the mere fact that he is a conservative justice.
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
Which they have fuck all power to do so we'll see what happens.
Dems know that they’re going to get a massively conservative justice that’s not going to stop them (nor should it) for being not too happy at Kennedy’s opinions on various cases this term. They shouldn’t not be angry on his decision re gerrymandering just because he say, sided with the liberal justices on gay marriage.
But, the new Justice will be a hardline conservative.
How about £50 bet with loser donating to PB ?
If 20+ US states have banned abortion by the end of 2019 I'll pay.
If under 20 US states have baned abortion by the end of 2019 you pay.
Angus
Perthshire
Fife
Staffordshire
Cambridgeshire
Herefordshire
West Sussex
Kent
In paractical terms a lot of states might not actually ban abortion, they'll just pile on all the bullshit that had been previously ruled illegal and de facto ban abortion.
I don't think either of us wants to have to do a state by state search of functioning abortion facilities to see which way the bet falls.
Its purpose is to give an indication of how likely or not we are to have 'crops rotting in the fields because there are no workers to pick them'.
If gay marriage was no longer legal it would affect gays. It wouldn't affect the lives of opponents of gay marriage though.
The problem is people wanting to affect other people's lives, not people wanting change for their own.
Q: Which British boxer twice fought Muhammad Ali in 1963 and 1966?
A: "That was Henry Kelly wasn't it?"
The idea of the presenter of going for gold in the ring with Ali has had me laughing all evening!