Biden's Cabinet of Curiosities

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118

But here's some salt for that sweet, the guy who wrote what became prop 22 in California, the law that strips protections from gig workers, was quietly put in to the labor department.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
A really good move. Governments should not be blackmailed into letting corporations off the hook, by the threat of them fucking off and taking their assets to some low-regulation, low-tax haven, to reap the rewards without any obligation to give back.

I don't even see any downsides for other major geopolitical actors like China, Russia, India & Brazil backing this move on a global scale. No reason for them to block it, right?
 
Last edited:

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,277
794
118
Country
United States
So Biden's position on immigration is this...

If the parents and the kids come, we kick them out and don't let them in.
If the kids come by themselves we let them in, and maybe we don't kick them out in the US.

So many problems with this. For one Biden is rewarding risk-taking, however, if they stay in Central American they don't have a future.

So what a family came to the US together. I assume Biden assumes that if they come together here, it will be safer for them to go back to Honduras, El Salvador, or Guatemala together than for one or two kids doing it together. But it's a dick move non-the-less. Just let them in, we are a nation of immigrants, my great-grandfather didn't have papers, and I suspect many people who are against this had past families that didn't have papers either.

Also to those that say we can't have a social democracy with a more liberal immigration policy, bullshit. The US is a liberal-nationalist country. As long as you integrate you will be fine. Those immigrants will get jobs, or their kids will get jobs as long as you don't ostracize them.

Also to those that say Europe isn't doing it, or Australia isn't doing it. I hate to tell you this but the US has high aspirations than both of those countries. Europe doesn't have the aspirations of wanting to be a world power. They would rather invest in current goods than future goods. While China would rather invest in future goods then-current goods, but we have something better we have invested in human capital, and I would rather the next Einstein or Von Neumann be born in the US, than in another country.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
It appears that Tom Perez didn't land in the administration:

 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
I remember being informed that Biden opposes private prisons. Weird!
Absolute bullshit from the DOJ there. I was wondering what on earth justification they could have offered for this, so I've been sitting through the arguments in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals...


Representing the US Mark Stern said:
This is not a case that is about a question of policy. The question- and I think this is the crucial point- the question is whether the federal government gets to make the policy choices for the federal government. As the court knows, California has barred contractors from doing work with the federal government to operate private detention facilities for ICE.
So, he's arguing that California doesn't have the right to prevent the federal government carrying out one if its functions, and that that's what AB32 does. He also makes the limpdick claim that this isn't about policy at all. Bollocks to that, of course it is.

The defendants (and the ACLU) have countered that the federal government's right to carry out these functions via private contractors isn't protected by law.

Representing GEO Michael Kirk said:
Both the supreme court and this court have held in case after case, that it is settled that any state law that obstructs or burdens a federal function by regulating the performance of a government contractor is unconstitutional under inter-governmental immunity principles, and that is true regardless of whether the statute discriminates against the federal government or not. In Leslie Miller and Gatrel, state laws imposing licensing requirements on government contractors were struck down.
OK, so he's basically making much the same case as Stern. Lots of overlap and wasted time.

And from the other side....

Representing California Gabrielle Boutin said:
In 2019 the California legislature recognised that there was a health and safety problem within its borders, regarding how private companies operating detention facilities were treating their detainees. As this court stated in US V California, California has the historic police power "to ensure the health and welfare of inmates and detainees within facilities within its borders". Pursuant to that power the state enacted AB32, which generally prohibits private entities and individuals from detaining other persons within the state. The law is an exercise of the state's sovereign authority and does not violate the supremacy clause.
So, she's contextualising this as a health-and-safety issue: the state has the obligation to protect health and welfare, and those are undermined by private companies which have failed to maintain them.

The argument (as so often with US law...) has boiled down to an argument about federal-vs-state authority, so there's not much to go on on moral policy justifications, alas.

Suffice it to say I do not believe the DOJ when they say it's "not a case of policy". Why object to strenuously to a question of necessary authority, if you've already signalled your intention to do the same on a federal level?

Representing the ACLU Jordan Wells said:
My friend Mister Stern says that this is a policy choice for the federal government. But the framers of our constitution vested all legislative powers in Congress alone. This appeal centres on a highly consequential federal policy, yet the plaintiffs cannot locate any plausible positive authority for the sprawling system of privately-run ICE detention centres.
The ACLU's guy obviously talks a lot more broadly and a lot more emotively. Nice to hear, but I doubt it'll be as effective as the specific nitty gritty stuff that Boutin put forward.
 
Last edited:

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States

Look, I'm not so petty so as to simply say "I told you so" to all the people who assured me months ago something like this would not happen and Trump would surely face consequences under the watch of a Biden administration DoJ.


i_told_you_so_stephen_colbert.gif

I'm way pettier than that.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male

Look, I'm not so petty so as to simply say "I told you so" to all the people who assured me months ago something like this would not happen and Trump would surely face consequences under the watch of a Biden administration DoJ.

I'm way pettier than that.
Uh...if you pay close attention to what the article is saying, you'll note that the piece is speculative and largely amounts to fearmongering that the Justice Department's position with regards to the E. Jean Carroll case (which is a complicated matter to say the least) could suggest that it would use the same arguments to defend Trump for charges brought against him for the Capitol Riot, which is an assumption that goes well beyond the scope of the DoJ's decision in that case. Its position on the Carroll case hinges on the fact that Trump was a politician denying (albeit very crassly and inappropriately) public allegations about him...which is par for the course for a politician, as much as we may wish otherwise. That is quite a different animal than riling up a crowd that then proceeded to try and disrupt a governmental body from performing its duty. Hell, the article even ends noting that there's a substantive legal distinction between the comments being defended in the Carroll case and those of the Capitol Riot, noting that while the comments about Carroll's allegations are at least arguably covered, those of the Capitol Riot almost certainly are not.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,069
1,206
118
Country
United States
Uh...if you pay close attention to what the article is saying, you'll note that the piece is speculative and largely amounts to fearmongering that the Justice Department's position with regards to the E. Jean Carroll case (which is a complicated matter to say the least) could suggest that it would use the same arguments to defend Trump for charges brought against him for the Capitol Riot, which is an assumption that goes well beyond the scope of the DoJ's decision in that case. Its position on the Carroll case hinges on the fact that Trump was a politician denying (albeit very crassly and inappropriately) public allegations about him...which is par for the course for a politician, as much as we may wish otherwise. That is quite a different animal than riling up a crowd that then proceeded to try and disrupt a governmental body from performing its duty. Hell, the article even ends noting that there's a substantive legal distinction between the comments being defended in the Carroll case and those of the Capitol Riot, noting that while the comments about Carroll's allegations are at least arguably covered, those of the Capitol Riot almost certainly are not.
Reading the entire article rather than the twitter summaries would get in the way of feeling smug and superior.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
...which is a complicated matter to say the least...
It really isn't. A federal subcontract employee was injured on the job due to negligence by a federal employee, and sued the responsible party for damages. The federal government argued it held absolute immunity from civil suit, the case made its way to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS sided with the subcontractor and allowed the civil suit to progress. Westfall v. Erwin, 484 US 292 (1988).

Congress shat its pants over this, realizing federal employees could then be sued personally for acting like absolute fuckheads on the job. That brings us the Westfall act, which grants qualified immunity for federal employees while acting within the scope of their jobs, by requiring the federal government itself be named as defendant rather than the individual. The loophole to this, and Congress' convenient excuse for effectively negating a Supreme Court decision absent a Constitutional amendment, is sovereign immunity.

This isn't "well just anybody could sue federal employees over anything" territory. That's called frivolity and it can be grounds for dismissal with prejudice, compensatory and punitive damages assigned to plaintiffs, and in some cases contempt charges.

...could suggest that it would use the same arguments to defend Trump for charges brought against him for the Capitol Riot, which is an assumption that goes well beyond the scope of the DoJ's decision in that case.
Okay, first, there are no "charges" being brought against Trump. He has been named defendant in civil suits. In this the form of the case, and the salient legal questions, are identical and therefore so will be the defense. A defense the DoJ is obliged to perform, because...

...Its position on the Carroll case hinges on the fact that Trump was a politician denying (albeit very crassly and inappropriately) public allegations about him...
...for one thing, Biden also had credible sexual assault allegations levied against him which have been and will continue to be forcefully denied, and his own DoJ which I'll remind you is a department of the executive branch and therefore serves at the President's will, isn't going to lay the legal framework allowing him to be sued.

And this goes back to my exact point in the thread I linked: Biden's DoJ won't be doing a damn thing other than defend Trump because it is simply irrational for them to do otherwise. Any action taken now will impact their future potential liability in the event of scandal or upon leaving office, and Biden's DoJ is not going to lay legal framework that could be used against them in the future, let alone legal framework that erodes the unitary executive nor imposes any constraint on presidential power, privilege, and immunity.

Just the same as the Obama admin and Obama DoJ refusing to investigate Bush or members of his administration.

...Hell, the article even ends noting that there's a substantive legal distinction between the comments being defended in the Carroll case and those of the Capitol Riot, noting that while the comments about Carroll's allegations are at least arguably covered, those of the Capitol Riot almost certainly are not.
There is no substantive legal distinction, that's sound and fury, signifying nothing. The Capitol riot suits cite the Third Enforcement Act as their legal grounds for proceeding, and the Third Enforcement Act only applies to the states (and DC), not the federal government.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
And this goes back to my exact point in the thread I linked: Biden's DoJ won't be doing a damn thing other than defend Trump because it is simply irrational for them to do otherwise. Any action taken now will impact their future potential liability in the event of scandal or upon leaving office, and Biden's DoJ is not going to lay legal framework that could be used against them in the future, let alone legal framework that erodes the unitary executive nor imposes any constraint on presidential power, privilege, and immunity.
Which seems a bit odd to me. Yes, they don't want to set a precedent that the GOP will use after they hand the GOP the election, but it's not like the GOP can't set the precedent themselves. The GOP set a lot of precedents when they were in power.

Not that I'm saying you're wrong to predict that'll be their move (or lack of), it just doesn't seem a great move.