The Politics/Economics/Law/Whatevers Thread

[Syphon the Sun]

Sometimes I feel like I can't really express my opinion on things or link to things because I'm so outnumbered, here. So, I think I'm going to start posting in here (when I remember). Feel free to engage in spirited discussion or tell me I'm wrong (though I'd much prefer if you tell me why). But this way I don't have to hijack the News thread, Things I Hate thread, or whathaveyou.


So, my (bad) news of the day:

Egan-Jones recently downgraded US bond ratings.

We are taking a negative action not based on the delay in raising the debt ceiling but rather our concern about the high level of debt to GDP in excess of 100% compared to Canada’s 35%.

[CezeN]

I wish I knew anything about politics/economics, but it's just so hard for me to be interested.

Eh, hopefully when I get older...

[steph]

Sometimes I feel like I can't really express my opinion on things or link to things because I'm so outnumbered, here. So, I think I'm going to start posting in here (when I remember). Feel free to engage in spirited discussion or tell me I'm wrong (though I'd much prefer if you tell me why). But this way I don't have to hijack the News thread, Things I Hate thread, or whathaveyou.

FWIW, I usually agree with you. I'm just to scared to ever express my opinion.

[mr_thebrain]

nah, when it comes to politics i tend to feel that if i say something then someone is going to go out of their way to prove it wrong, and that'd force me to concede the point or prove them wrong, and honestly i am WAY too lazy to go that far into it! plus i'm too proud to concede the point because i'm right! dammit!

it's just easier to let people be misguided.

[Syphon the Sun]

Why the Obama Administration's decision not to defend federal laws is hurting democracy

Okay, so, by now you've all probably heard about the DOJ not defending or appealing decisions striking down laws the Administration politically disagrees with. This has mostly come up as part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) cases. The problem, here, is that people are celebrating the end result without giving thought to the means by which that result was achieved. By choosing not to defend against a lawsuit, or refusing to appeal it per customary norms, the judicial opinion becomes the interpretation (at least to its jurisdiction). Now, you may be thinking that's not so bad. After all, you got the result you wanted this time, right?

The problem is that the underlying reasons (at least those given publicly) for why the DOJ refuses to defend these laws are based on contested theories of constitutional law. Indeed, it's founded upon a constitutional theory that hasn't (yet) been endorsed by the Supreme Court or the heavy-hitting Circuits (those Circuits that have a high volume and tend to "get it right" in terms of affirmation rates when cases go to the Supreme Court).

The DOJ has a general duty to defend all federal statutes so long as it has a reasonable, non-frivolous basis to do so. Instead, the Obama Administration has declared it the policy of DOJ to independently review the constitutionality of federal statutes under whatever constitutional theory the Administration politically favors.

So why does this hurt democracy? If the Obama-Holder approach becomes the norm, all party-line legislation can be de facto repealed the next time the presidency shifts parties. You just wait until your guy gets in office, file suit and wait for the DOJ to decline defending the statute. The Executive branch now has the power to decide which laws to enforce and, in effect, the power to decide what the law is at any given time. And if they can decide whether to enforce the law, they can just as easily decide how to enforce the law, even if their interpretation is widely different from legislative intent.

[Syphon the Sun]

I wish I knew anything about politics/economics, but it's just so hard for me to be interested.

Eh, hopefully when I get older...

Well, it's sort of my job to be interested. But if/when you ever get interested, I could probably get you a reading list of why I believe what I believe. And it would be a nice counter-point to whatever you'll probably be learning in college (unless you're doing econ at UChicago), so that you can actually evaluate multiple sides of any particular issue.

[CezeN]

I wish I knew anything about politics/economics, but it's just so hard for me to be interested.

Eh, hopefully when I get older...

Well, it's sort of my job to be interested. But if/when you ever get interested, I could probably get you a reading list of why I believe what I believe. And it would be a nice counter-point to whatever you'll probably be learning in college (unless you're doing econ at UChicago), so that you can actually evaluate multiple sides of any particular issue.

I actually never planned on taking another Econ class since taking one Senior year of High School.

However, I would appreciate the reading list. I tend to read serious material before I go to sleep, and since Economics bores me to sleep it would help.

[Syphon the Sun]

Obamacare's individual mandate ruled unconstitutional by the Eleventh Circuit. Next up: Supreme Court.

(I would have posted this sooner, but I've been rushing to get something out about this for work. More analysis/discussion of this later.)