Yes, of course, nobody on the left is “thinking about the children.”
Except this has gone on forever, and the idea that a trans woman (who used to be a man) is going to sneak into a little girl’s bathroom in order to do bad things to them is ridiculous. Or that some dude is going to cross dress, molest a little girl and then get off scott free by claiming he’s just trans. Or whatever. These are made-up boogey-man scenarios to scare people, just like the stories about gay marriage and gay adoption.
I’ll tell you what, though, this fear of what goes on inside restrooms has led the US to have the worst bathrooms ever. I’ll take a European men’s room with full walls any day, thanks.
Yes — the federal government could intervene if state laws violated the constitution. But the method is key. The feds would file a lawsuit. Threatening to withhold funds to compel the states is impermissible. Both Obama and trump have attempted it.
An action can be unconstitutional absent a formal court ruling by the way. Legal theory woo !
I feel like this is a symptom of the fact that the manner in which our legislature has broken down so completely it no longer functions as intended. Because the two parties refuse to work together to achieve compromise, the executive is trying to accomplish things via fiat.
Timex - note trump also claimed that he was justified in withholding money from sanctuary states because in his view, the states are interfering w federal immigration enforcement (which is legally impermissible — states need not HELP feds with immigration policy but they cannot interfere actively, because of the supremacy clause). Is trump wrong ? Probably. Was Obama’s wrong when he argued to expand the law broadly on the bathroom issue? Probably. But it doesn’t matter. In neither case can you use federal funds to strong arm state action. Obama’s interpretation of the law would permit him to sue the schools. Not withhold funds unilaterally to strong arm.
One party. The Republicans. Not to aggressively disagree but I like to offer a counter view whenever the “both sides” argument comes up. Its just Republicans who have broken the proper functioning of the Republic. I blame them entirely.
I’d agree it isn’t equal, but I think democrats have resorted to some similar tactics at times. You could argue they haven’t had much other choice, but the point isn’t about assigning blame so much as realizing that the fundamental manner in which our government is supposed to work has stopped functioning.
No argument here, especially with respect to Supreme Court nominations, which I feel was criminal in a literal sense. But if I recall correctly, wasn’t it a change in senate protocol by democrats that has enabled a lot of what has happened more recently?
He’s totally wrong.
The “actions” that are being taken by the state aren’t actions at all. They’re merely refusing to take actions to enforce federal law. They are doing nothing to hinder the enforcement of that law.
It is not the state’s duty to expend their funds to enforce federal laws, and refusal to proactively do so cannot reasonably be interpreted as interference with enforcement of those laws.
As an example, if a cop is chasing a criminal, and I’m standing there and just watch and do nothing, I am absolutely not interfering with the police. Am not obligated to pro-actively assist them. If I were to actually aid the criminal, then THAT would be interference, but that is not what is being suggested in the case of sanctuary cities. Those cities are merely choosing not to go out of their way to enforce federal immigration laws. And they are under no obligation to do so. Federal laws are enforced by FEDERAL law enforcement.
Your statement is factually wrong. Your clarification below (“at times”) is more accurate. The Republicans filibustered virtually everything during Obama’s years, up to and including the Office of the Exchequer. Norman Orstein wrote about this, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks.." (Ornstein works at AEI, a conservative think tank.)
Shorter reply, stop repeating pablum and I’ll stop being a pompous ass.
Edit: Democrats removed the filibuster for Cabinet positions and judicial nominees, largely because they couldn’t get anyone through the Senate. Probably the right thing to do even though the price is people like Pruitt and DeVos.
I can’t speak to all instances of California policy but your opinion sounds right. regardless — even if trump is totally wrong, rationale isn’t relevant b/c it’s per se impermissible for feds to circumvent the courts by threatening /holding hostage usual /scheduled financial support.
We both could have done a better job the first time. Fair?
As for the filibuster, I’m not sure I agree that was the right thing. Taking procedural shortcuts when the system isn’t working simply seems to make the potential for abuse that much worse in the long run. But then, I don’t have an alternative to offer.
Well, IMO the filibuster should be used sparingly, and (in general) the Executive branch should have deference with their nominees (they won the election after all.) This regime however nominated many people wholly unqualified for their positions, but the Republican party just rubber stamped them anyway. We probably need an entirely new system of government, but … that’s not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
You think US bathrooms are designed out of some fear of bathroom boogie men? Based on what? I am old and I haven’t seen any major design change over the last 50+ years.
What of police forces (cities and counties) that refuse to notify ICE or whatever federal authority about the existence in their jails of people of interest. Isn’t that interfering with federal law?
How can a state pick and choose which federal laws based on their choice they will enforce? Civil war, southern states, blah blah blah…
