LukeinNE

Just for everyone's information, here's a graph showing the nominal (blue) value of the minimum wage and the real, inflation adjusted value of it (red).

Yea, who really cares? Right? It's not like they are human beings that could potentially be rehabilitated or counseled to quit using drugs. Instead, let's make sure they exit prison more hardened criminals than they were when they went in. Our publicly operated prisons are doing a perfectly fine job of that already.

Please God, not the surrender whites again...

My biggest concern with the privatization of prisons isn't the well-being of prisoners (as long as they keep them alive and healthy, I really don't care), it's the enormous conflict of interest that prison companies would be able to help elect the same officials that then make the calls on who gets what contract for how much. I have the same issue with public employee unions, construction contractors (though there's not much to be done about that) and so on. It just smells like a fleecing of the taxpayers waiting to happen.

The US is actually near the top of global charts when it comes to education spending. The answer here isn't more funding, it's having the courage to take on entrenched interests that harm the system (teacher's unions, economically segregated school districts), the serenity to accept that there are some factors we can't change (a stubbornly permanent underclass that is going to pull down our national numbers) and of course the wisdom to know the difference. Indeed. I would not consider my voting for her to be very likely.

Eventually? Of course she does. Within the constraints of an 8 year presidency, she'd probably only succeed in raising everyone's electric bill and gas prices.

*Shrug* I'm not concerned about "the narrative" in terms of whose appointees voted which way, I'm trying to figure out where these judges are ideologically, so as to read the tea leaves for the future. In the case of Judge Gregory, it is my suspicion that he is a liberal that Bush, for political reasons, elected not to replace. I think ultimately the path forward is pretty obvious: the full DC Circuit will overturn the panel's ruling, it'll get appealed to SCOTUS, SCOTUS will accept it, and a steady flow of shouted obscenities will come forth from Chief Justice Roberts' chambers.

My tone on an issue is usually based on the seriousness of the argument someone makes. One of my biggest hobbyhorses (which hasn't really come up on here) is the unseriousness (imho, of course) of the the eco-left's energy policies. In their case, I can't think of anyone who engages in breathless hyperbole better. I'm almost certainly being unfair to Warren, but she comes out of the left wing of the Democratic Party, where the eco-left also resides. Ergo, when I hear a liberal like Warren reference environmental stewardship, my mind immediately conjures up nutters chaining themselves to pipeline construction equipment. Not unlike, in fact, Warren's Handmaiden's Tale rendering of the Hobby Lobby decision above. The distinction, of course, is that she's a US Senator and a potential Presidential candidate, and I'm a 25 year old bean counter from Nebraska.

Actually 2 Obama appointees and a George W. Bush renomination. I hate to pull this card, but I'd bet just about anything that W. didn't want the headache of effectively firing a black judge.

Eh? "We're going to take care of the environment" means very different things depending on who says it. Surely you can appreciate that. https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/statuses/483638466543357953 Demagogic whoppers like that one are about all I need to know about Fauxcahontas' intellectual integrity. And I disapproved of the Hobby Lobby decision.

Unanimous, 2 Obama appointees and a Clinton appointee. This looks like another 5-4 at SCOTUS to me.

These positions don't make her radically liberal. I'm fairly conservative and I don't think they're even basically liberal but rather just common sense. However, I am sure there are some on the far right tea party side that would complain how liberal this list is without actually being opposed to much of it. My concern isn't that the statements themselves are radically liberal, it's that I think the means required to accomplish many of them would be unpalatable. The only one on that list that I can agree to right now is #3, because it's the only thing on her list that fights government intrusion rather than requires it. Others, say #2 and #10, are ones where I agree with the statement, but almost certainly would disagree with her policy prescriptions. On #2, I can agree that basic environmental protections are necessary to make sure companies aren't utterly destroying the environment. However, because it's coming from her mouth, I hear "we're going to regulate coal, oil, and natural gas out of existence and borrow money to prop up a thousand Solyndras."

I commute from Omaha to Lincoln so most of the books I "read" are actually books on tape through Amazon's Audible. Right now I'm on:

This must be the NUpolo eye test again. It's just impossible to have it both ways. Nebraska cannot have a "salty" defense, have it be "our year" or have the "best RB tandem" and let a Fresno team that is likely going to be a lower level MWC team "run wild" on them. Its duplicitous. I don't care how late/hot/tricky/dusty/trap gamey it is. Everyone on this team knows when this game is, and when it is. There is no way they should be caught not paying attention. This is a bad team and good teams beat bad teams. Handily. To be clear, my "run wild" comment referenced their quarterback. I don't expect another 700 yard meltdown again this year, but a mobile qb going for say 150 yards on the ground can completely change a game.

Total aside: I find it remarkable that just 40 years ago we had a Republican President implementing price controls. Talk about a paradigm shift since then. I doubt even a President Warren would try something like that.

Fairly even split. The justice most likely to be replaced next is probably Ginsburg. I think the US is strongest when the best ideas from both sides are brought to the table. Give me compromises, please. (If both sides are pissed it's probably a compromise.) Also, FWIW, the current SCOTUS is trending more conservative. That Ginsburg has not retired yet is a stunner for me. At 81 and change, the odds of her living 10 more years (or at least not being forced into retirement) are pretty low. The odds of the Republicans holding the White House, Senate, or both for most of those 10 years are pretty high. From a liberal Constitutional perspective, Ginsburg getting swapped out for another conservative would be a catastrophe.

Agrees that Roberts would be looking for an opportunity to "redeem himself." Or that there are 4 justices who want to gut the ACA regardless of the merits. As opposed to the 4 liberals who would uphold ObamaCare if Jesus himself came down to argue the case against the Administration? I guess I never really got the complaints about how liberals voting in ideological lockstep = common sense jurisprudence and conservatives doing the same thing = radical partisan hackery. We have 9 intelligent human beings on the Court. They're some of our better legal minds, but it's silly to assume that the facts of the case are ever all that factors in to their decisions. I think for example, if Roberts was not Chief Justice, he'd have voted with the conservative wing on the first ObamaCare decision.

The usual SJW mantra/mantras

Agrees with what, Carl?

Could be. All they'll have to do is ignore a basic legal principle. If it does go before SCOTUS it will probably be a couple years from now. The law will be even more entrenched. Roberts got cold feet about the public opinion of the court on a stronger case than this . . . do you really think that he will go there? Here's the official Voxplanation of what just happened and where we're going forward. The word 'standing' doesn't appear anywhere in the article. As for what Roberts will do, who knows. It could be he's tired of the ObamaCare thing and will go full-Souter in throwing it out. My read is that in 2012, he thought Romney had a good chance of winning and didn't want to politicize the court, so he invalidated the government's main argument (interstate commerce) and upheld it on a technicality while giving the Republicans a very juicy campaign talking point (Obama raised people's taxes). That didn't work, so he may be ready for another bite at the apple and do real damage this time. It's pretty much a given that the other conservatives would go along. We will see, but I think it's a near certainty that this will end up in front of SCOTUS.

I think you're being wildly optimistic there. It only takes 4 Supremes to get a case before them, and there are 4 Supremes that very much want to burn the law to the ground. This will go before SCOTUS.

She's running for president, and she's going to bury Hillary Clinton. She knows how to harness the passions of the activist wing of the Democratic Party in a way no one else can. I doubt costs would go up that much. McDonalds would just roll out this bad boy and turn all those fast food workers into clients of the welfare state.

Potentially devastating blow to the health care law, if the decision is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court (first it has to be heard by the full DC Circuit). This has been a stealthy case (until now), but essentially the health care law as written states that only state-run exchanges are eligible for subsidies. The conservative position is basically that the law has to be interpreted as its written, while the liberal position focuses more on intent and practicality. The problems, in two sentences:

I wouldn't mind seeing us essentially pull our military out of Europe. NATO has atrophied under our protective umbrella and to what end? So we can pile up debts while Europeans smugly tell us how much better they are at organizing society? There's no reason to subsidize them.

If not Northwestern, then I'd say Wisconsin, though I've heard one's opinion of that place is very subject to individual taste.