(i actually thought the normal whites thesis would hold over from the midterms, with biden at the helm, and then after oct 7 and as biden looked like a literal marionette with blinken pulling the strings, i thought they’d/he’d let bibi exhaust himself in warcrimes, let bibi hang himself in the court of public opinion, and then tact to a more moderate policy, with a new candidate at the helm, after the stewardship of genocide was complete.
so i did successfully, if accidently, call biden dropping so that the party could pick his successor while avoiding a primary; i just assumed biden would be a willing participant, and that the adults in the room would have the juice to cow Israel, instead of being totally juiceless, feckless worms.)
it may have the Princeton Consortium guy. i think he said he’d literally eat his shoes, or a pile of bugs or something if he lost – i’m sure he at least ate rhetorical crow and had to follow up with a mea culpa post.
The Dems are not becoming/ cannot become Republicans. if fusionist republican orthodoxy was sufficient to win, the GOP would still be doing it; Paul Ryan would be in his second term as president. it’s not, you need some popular juice, because only appealing to the donors is not sufficient. and yet, the Trumpist, pseduo-populist GOP still promises corporate/capital gains tax cuts; it will still be for exporting war and imperialism and deregulation of industry and markets, and there’s no way it loses fully the donor class, which itself has different interests and constituents.
the current harris attempt at triangulation only works, if it actually does, because Trump has unique weaknesses – attempting to foment a constitutional crisis, instead of peacefully transferring power, and pissing off, in a personal way, prior GOP powerbases. harris can attempt to appeal to the Never Trumpers to squeak over this electoral line, but that won’t be a viable long-term strategy: the WSJ readers will uniformly return to the GOP.
if anyone is cooked, its these waffling dems. the Obama coalition is collapsing in real time: the demographic inevitability/ ascendency thesis is no more, as the dems are hemorrhaging support from non-whites. woke-capitalist/imperialist rhetoric will not be enough after Trump: if the dems can’t provide material support to the non-college educated, many will be drawn to the inclusive, non-PMC-inflected cultural posture of the Trumpists.
no. Hillary faceplanting was embarrassing because of how unexpected it was; it’s understood that Kamala very well may lose, there’s just no way it can be embarrassing to the same degree.
I thought the humiliation of 2016 should have made him crawl under a rock to hide forever
Huh? Silver was literally the only “serious” prognosticator who forecasted a possible upset; everyone else thought it was a no contest (Princeton gave it like a 99.5% “Bayesian” prediction for Hillary).
Boredom w all due respect: that’s not really responding to my post, and, no, it would not be easy to get rid of the Bill of Rights: formally it would new Constitutional amendments, absolutely impossible, and insofar as you mean that the Court might make the protections vacuous, it would be abandoning totally it’s role as a Common Law actor; it would be acting by unprecedented, judicial-legislative fiat.
I think putting this at the feet of the genius of the English/American Common Law is misguided. There seems to be plenty of precedent for providing due process protections for established, naturalized aliens, which should otherwise guide a precedent-respecting common law court.
In various opinions, the Court has suggested that at least some of the constitutional protections to which an alien is entitled may turn upon whether the alien has been admitted into the United States or developed substantial ties to this country.
See Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, No. 19-161, slip op. at 2 (U.S. June 25, 2020) (stating that “aliens who have established connections in this country have due process rights in deportation proceedings” ); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990) ( “These cases, however, establish only that aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.” ); Landon, 459 U.S. at 32 ( “[O]nce an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence his constitutional status changes accordingly.” ); Kwong Hai Chew, 344 U.S. at 596 n.5 ( “But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.” ); Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 770 (1950) ( “The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society.” ); Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 101 (1903) ( “[I]t is not competent for the Secretary of the Treasury or any executive officer, at any time within the year limited by the statute, arbitrarily to cause an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here, to be taken into custody and deported without giving him all opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States.” ).
My intuition is that even if the due process rights recognized above were read narrowly by the Court to be procedural rather than substantive, I think in a practical terms this would make an undertaking of denaturalizing and removing established American aliens prohibitively costly (it just would not be practical to provide sufficiently fair process for millions of people).
I’m not saying that Trump/Miller won’t be able to do this. But they will be able to because the Court, with its jurisprudential drift towards natural law- inflected Originalist interpretation, has and will be abandoning stare decisis (see Dobbs, overruling Casey, which, other than being the abortion case, was the Court’s articulation of its own stare decisis guardrails) and will be looking at cases, when it sees fit, as a matter of first impression. This is an abandonment common law principles, a terrible devolution towards continental, “civil” law barbarity.
Can’t wait to tell the naturalized immigrants that get torn from their homes and families that they were just the delta between 100 pct and 99 pct Hitler 🤓
19·1 month ago
Removed by mod