You know, I have no idea what the party system is like in other countries. I vaguely recall the UK's system was discussed in social studies back in high school (Whigs and Tories!) but that was decades ago. Last month I got caught up in reading a bunch of tweets when Scotland had their election - JK Rowling was very fired up about it (yes I follow JK Rowling, shut up), and there was much discussion on her twitter page - the issues seemed much the same as here. After typing this I went to the wikipedia page and there were four parties mentioned for Scotland, but I couldn't tell if they were all equally represented or if any of them were like the small parties here. I don't know if this is something to spin off to another thread, I'm just curious whether the US is really alone in only having two dominating parties.
Here's what people in this country don't understand: It is absolutely intentional that the system is operating this way. Why? Because it protects the current status quo. What I'm finally seeing is political scholars recognizing that we are living in the Reagan years. As lobbying has increased, and in light of recent Supreme Court rulings, you have an incredible amount of money being pumped into the system. Why is this relevant? Because while you hear a lot about income inequality (the worst it's been since the 1920') and stagnant wages and poor jobs, there is a very powerful segment of American society that wants things this way. If you are exceedingly wealthy in this country, times have never been better. The Koch brothers have said they will spend $900 million in the next election. These guys, for whatever faults you may think they have, are not stupid. They are getting something for their money. What are they getting? Protection of the status quo. Low taxes, ease of manufacturing imports, cheap labor, and continued access to the politicians. So while on the outside, it appears that American government is dysfunctional due to the two party system, in actuality, it is functioning exactly the way that the powerful want it to: which is not at all. However, it is necessary to sell the idea to the American public that it is dysfunction and that there is an idealogical split between the parties. There is not, they are both on the same page and dance for the same masters. It's being done with mirrors, and the public is buying it. Edit: In fact, I'm currently parsing through this document in order to analyze it.
Please explain to me why somebody like the Koch brothers require lower taxes. What can you buy with eleven billion dollars that you can't buy with ten? A fucking moon? Casino boss Steve King said: ...right before he shattered a stegosaurus skeleton with a mauler. To this day, I can't figure out how less than 95% of your country listens to these billionaire assholes.
Breaking news:U.S. Supreme Court declared gay marriage legal nationwide. All remaining states will be forced to lift their bans. Kudos, neighbours. Kudos.
This has been an eventful week. California handed the smack down to anti-vaccers. We rescued our healthcare. Gay marriage is upheld. What bothers me though is the 5-4 ruling. How the fuck can they dissent on this? Anybody have them in writing? There was mention of a couple states laws defining marriage as heterosexual unions only, which might have influenced their decisions. But there is no mention of sexual orientation anywhere in the constitution. Soooooo... ?
I guess you could call it that. Other than that, good for the gays. For a demographic group that commits very little crime, pays a ton in taxes, and actively helps the gentrification effort wherever they live, this was long overdue. The dissent wasn't based on not liking gay marriage, it was based on the premise that the court shouldn't be deciding it.
I was just reading some of Scalia's excerpts. He is probably the worst person on the bench. "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity," I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." Wow.
I'll take it. There's no way in hell we will get a single payer or reform the health insurance business in the immediate future. That we keep the ACA is nothing shy of a miracle. I don't even know what that means. He just contradicted himself in his own dissent. Perhaps his buddy Thomas should only get 3/5 of a vote still?
I took it to mean that he is embarrassed by the legal reasoning of his own court. And also doesn't think people should have the right to be who they are.
Which he should be. The legal reasoning of the Supreme Court goes like this (from both sides). I support X goal, therefore any policy that moves in that direction or at least seems to move in that direction is legal. I am against Y, therefore any policy that moves in that direction or seems to is illegal. The idea of the rule of law is completely lost on this Supreme Court and both houses of Congress and the President.
Was very interesting I highly suggest it. At some point I think their may be a tipping point where these anti GMO people are looked at like the anti vaccers. Just another low info semi luddite types that speak out of both sides of their mouth about science. I've read that the whole Monsanto suing your mom and pop farmer into the ground is wildly overblown. That there have been around 5 or so cases where they took farmers to court for either violating the contracts the farmers agreed to or neighboring farmers whose crops were pollinated expressly selling their seeds as round up ready corn, an obvious copyright infringement.
I can't stomach reading very many Supreme Court rulings, but that's how they typically read. The majority favors or disfavors something then twists the language of laws to back themselves up. Then the minority does the same in their dissent. The idea of a Constitutional basis for the Supreme Courts' decisions was abandoned before the ink on it was dry.
OR there are multiple ways to interpret the constitution and you're upset because this particular ruling goes against your beliefs. For two centuries there have been different interpretations of the constitution. Some believe it is to be taken strictly by the letter of these as written, others believe it is a living breathing document open to interpretation according to the times. This is the basis of almost all cases. In this particular case, everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the constitution. I fail to see how that wasn't upheld by this ruling. Fyi: this same amendment has been used to change voting laws and was also cited in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Stated simply, under the 14th amendment, everyone has equal protection under the law. There are no constitutional exceptions based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. By denying marriage certificates to the homosexual community, the state is denying them a basic right.
To play devil's advocate for a minute, its 3 fold in my opinion, in descending order of merit. 1) For super wealthy like the Kochs, wealth is a scoreboard. They don't want to lose money cause they've worked to make it and they don't want it to measureably lessen for reasons out of their control. (Lame and not really defensible) 2) Many of the super wealthy have seen the inner workings of politics and they don't like paying higher taxes into an incredibly inefficient government. They aren't bleeding heart or overarching altruistic, so if they are going to put money towards a cause, might as well be something they can control like philanthropy. (Can see arguments on both sides) 3) Not as applicable for billionaires, but many millionaires feel they may not be there if larger chunks of their earnings were taken on their way up. Unless we get escalating brackets for $1MM, $5MM, $10MM, etc... the guy who is making $400K is getting taxed the same as the guy making $5MM. So the outrage at the hedge funder or corrupt CEO making tons of money gets directed at the top tax bracket with the aforementioned guy. Probably a millionaire, clearly not scrimping by, but assuming he's living in a major metro area with kids and a family, he's not making fuck you money. And if he's a small business owner, that might not be a steady $400K every year. First world problems, but that dude is far more "normal" that the Occupy Wall Street crew wanted you to believe. For the record, though I'm a financial conservative, I'm all in favor of super tax brackets. Largely cause I don't like the idea of over 50% of your income, all in, being consumed by taxes just cause you're successful, but not crazy wealthy.
I personally fall right in your #3 scenario. I'm the guy making the 400k(not really, but close enough) and getting whacked in taxes. The problem is when we have a down year I still have to lay out the previous years tax money plus some, or it sets off all kinds of alarms at the IRS and then I've got them crawling up my butt. I'm not saying I'm poor or that I'm hurting for money, but when you're in a business like mine(bar/restaurant) and you're cutting 50k quarterly to the government, it hurts. And, by not being mega rich I don't have access to a lot of the tax breaks that the super rich have.
That's actually not how they typically read. And that's an incredibly simplistic and inaccurate understanding of decisions like this...although, to be fair, legal jargon and understanding decades of judicial nuance and confusing precedents are difficult for most people to understand. VI, paging VI to the courtesy phone... I honestly didn't see any compelling evidence in any of the dissents.
You're right, they also justify their opinions with a lot of talking about previous terrible decisions that back up their supposed arguments. Why does anyone think any more highly of the Supreme Court than they do Congress? The list of outright evil Supreme Court decisions is quite long.
Funny story: on June 28th Canada will be celebrating ten years of gay marriage. We were only the 4th country and first outside Europe to do so. Today is as progressive as it gets for the United States. Alabama and South Dakota are ALREADY handing out same-sex marriage licenses. It's only been hours since it was put into law, this is amazing.
Meanwhile, in Mississippi: Mississippi attorney general: Gay marriage still on hold http://www.wtva.com/news/national/s...ay-marriage-still/u0xB-cFDHU-zClG_FVsbQA.cspx