Campaign of Attrition Open Thread

So now it is clear (and there were few doubts before), that it's going to be Romney. So here we have a situation. Romney and Obama both ran number crunching campaigns. Romey is not going to fire up the base. Obama did fire up the base in 2008, but won't this year. I don't know, but I am going to guess this will be one of the most dreadful races in a while, like World War I artillery pounding away day after day for little advantage. In the end, it will be the economy...

 

The super PACs might change that dynamic, but how? All I see is even heavier bombing 24x7, for months. I don't see either Obama or Romney straying far, if at all, from crafted, synthetic message lines.

 

All bets are off with an Iran strike, by anyone, of course.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My, That Was Big Of Him

(#277324)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Spike Lee reaches a settlement with family displaced by his malicious Tweeting.

I wonder how the authorities would have reacted if the oh-so-socially conscious and enlightened Mr. Lee had directed the angry mob to the "right" address, and someone had been killed as a result? Also, has Mr. Lee exchanged any phone calls or texts to the New Black Panthers? Given the outstanding bounty from the NBP for Mr. Zimmerman, that could be enough to make a case for criminal conspiracy.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Once again, there was no angry mob nt

(#277434)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

No, Not At All

(#277443)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Just enough angry letters and phone calls to send them fleeing from their home. No way at all that would ever have led to violence--and Spike Lee immediately paying them off has no significance whatsoever. They're probably lying about those letters and phone calls anyway.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

If, if, if

(#277446)
HankP's picture

you can legitimately complain about the letters and phone calls. You can legitimately call Spike Lee an idiot for what he did. But there was no angry mob, so you should stop claiming that there was.

I blame it all on the Internet

"Given the outstanding..."

(#277428)
brutusettu's picture

Why would Chewbacca, a 7' Wookie....

*sigh*

(#277218)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Jose--stop confusing the bottle with steroids in it with the one full of horse tranquilizers and LSD--the results aren't pretty.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Ichiro Feasts On Home Cooking In MLB Opener

(#277204)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Mariners win 3-1 over A's in Japan--Ichiro goes 4 for 5 in #3 spot.

All singles, though--it's a sign of just how pitiful the Mariners' offensive attack is when a natural leadoff hitter like Ichiro has to hit third, with Chone Figgins (another rant about goofy name pronunciations to be included in the record as if read) and his mighty .241 OBP from last year in the leadoff spot. Here's hoping that Ichiro has a big season, though--he's been good for the sport.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

And It's Magic & Company Bidding $2.15 Billion. . .

(#277152)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .to win the Great Dodger Sweepstakes. Holy crap--I hope they still have enough to pay some players. That being said. . .

 

 

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Heard Steve Garvey On The Radio Today

(#277199)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Granting a measure of sour grapes on his part (he was a member of another bidding group), when a man with multiple personal bankruptcies can accurately state that paying $2.15 billion for the Dodgers was "irresponsible," it should give said check-writers pause. Also, leaving (at least) $600 million on the table will not convince observers that you and your partners are financial whizzes.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Hey, look how rich they made Mrs. McCourt! nt

(#277154)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

Au contraire mon fraire...Not Mrs. Rather Mr. McCourt got Rich

(#277157)

 

...the trick of course was to hold out on  the parking lots and surrounding land....throwing that in the kitty is what raised the price.

 

Mrs. McCourt, getting $125M...is almost left a begger compaired to how her husband is going to make out.

 

All this is from memory, but I think Frank will net $500M even after paying her the settlement number.

 

I would suggest that Mrs. McCourt is spitting mad right now!

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

Edit: The settlement number now is up to 131M (with interest I presume)....and Frank may still be tangetially involved with the parking lots?!?

Facts of the deal are still coming to light.

 

I hadn't heard that she settled

(#277160)
HankP's picture

big mistake on her part, I'm pretty sure the dodgers would have been considered community property. Still, $125 million + isn't too shabby, I doubt she'll be crying herself to sleep.

I blame it all on the Internet

As Long As He Isn't Running The Show

(#277158)
M Scott Eiland's picture

I'm annoyed that McCourt is going to make out so well, but he's been stopped from looting the franchise into oblivion in spite of himself.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

"Per JC's direct instructions"

(#277104)
Bird Dog's picture

The noose tightens around Corzine and his company's theft of hundreds of millions from customer accounts.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

String him up

(#277118)
HankP's picture

if they let him slide on this, nobody's money is safe.

I blame it all on the Internet

About as close to a smoking gun....

(#277119)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

...as you can get.  I concur.  (Though there still has to be more to it, the $200MM only cover part of the shortfall.)

Sure there may be more

(#277121)
HankP's picture

but taking customers money and paying off bad prop desk losses is about as clear a case of theft as you could imagine, other than taking the customer money and depositing it directly in one's personal account.

I blame it all on the Internet

L,RtwtSP, I kid, I kid

(#277048)
brutusettu's picture

[url=http://www.theagitator.com/2012/03/26/morning-links-638/]Radley Balko comments on a Krugman article that I don't think Balko actually read[/url]

Bert Randolph Sugar: 1937-2012

(#277042)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Godspeed to one of the great storytellers of the sports world. The world will be a smaller and less entertaining place without him in it.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Charming

(#277041)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Perhaps after this, they should really go all out and cast David Duke as the lead in a remake of Schindler's List.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Well done, Mr Obama. That was quick.

(#277030)
mmghosh's picture

And [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/25/us-compensation-afghanistan-shooting-spree]generous, too,[/url] as these blood money payments go. I doubt the Taliban are paying money to the Afghans [i]they[/i] kill. It is a good way of showing up the NATO-Taliban differences in responses, attitudes and the feelings for the families concerned to random killings. Besides being a direct investment in the Afghan people, too.

[quote]US authorities have paid $50,000 (£32,000) in compensation for each Afghan killed in a shooting spree allegedly carried out by an American soldier in Kandahar province, a tribal elder has said.

The families of the dead received the money at the governor's office on Saturday, said Agha Lalai, a Kandahar provincial council member. Each wounded person received $11,000, Lalai said. A community elder, Jan Agha, confirmed the figures.

They were told that the money came from the US president, Barack Obama, Lalai said.[/quote]

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Hank, Did The Overnight Patch Take Away. . .

(#276991)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .sorting choices on comments? Everything is sorted newest comment on top, and there's no option to change it. Also, there are very few items per page. It's making me preview before sending, but that's not really a big deal. (-:

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Fixed

(#277000)
HankP's picture

sorry, didn't notice it last night.

I blame it all on the Internet

I'd also like to bang my cup on the bars

(#276996)

and demand to know what's with the format changes. My "nested-collapsed-newest on top" option is gone, and I'm not gonna take it anymore.

 

This also seems like an opportune time to mention how much I love Hank, how he's the greatest & most gifted webmaster I've ever known, and how his tireless work to keep this place running immeasurably improves my life on a daily basis.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

At Long Last

(#276953)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Tiger Woods ends long drought with a five stroke victory in the Arnold Palmer Invitational.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

James Cameron Comes Off As An Arrogant Jerk

(#276952)
M Scott Eiland's picture

But no one will ever be able to call him a coward after this.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Of course there are no racists on the American Right

(#276936)

Charles Johnson has a quick look at the comments section of Fox concerning the Trayvon shooting, and what he finds is unsurprising:

 

Perhaps Obama, Sharpton and Louis Eugene Wolcott (aka Louis Farrakhan) can hold a “Malt Liquour Summit.” Also, have you noticed the femininity of both Farrakhan and Rev. Wright? A natural attraction for B.O.

[…]

Trayvon = Like most Bl acks he’s illegitimate. Where’s his father?

[…]

A new low for obama.CNN ,its blaque anchor and blaque guest,has airtime to denounce this event.the killing is a tragedy,and our blaque president does not need to highlight it..enjoy your time in the spotlite all you minorities…I do not think america will ever elect a blaque,mexican,or any other ,,,thanx to this president,,,he has shown the world, favoritism to his race,,which was not supposed to exist..

[…]

Yes, his panic on Ne gro crime is an epidemic…sorry this did not fit the template you were soooo hoping for.

[…]

Obamanure should start wearing a hoodie so as to more closely identify with his kind.

[…]

Did the white side of him just use a racist joke saying all b l a c k s look alike?

[…]

I know one thing, if a n i g g e r is in my fenced in area he would meet my 12 gauge. N i g g e r s throughout history have been nothing but trouble everywhere they go!

[…]

Obowma is the most judgemental, racist POS on the face of the earth, BAR NONE.

[…]

You’re right, Barak, he DOES look Kenyan…..

[…]

moochelle is probably wondering where barry was 18 years ago…. gotta go check his calendar… im betting he was too busy on the down low to care about women

[…]

Obama is helping a b l a c k mob l y n c h an innocent H i s p a n i c for votes.

[…]

All I can say is that God Zimmerman (the alleged shooter) isn’t a white guy! Now I can walk around and not worry about the hommies beatin on my white-azz over this. Well, at least not over this issue. This whitey is off the hook on this one.

[…]

Breaking News! Last week, when Joe Biden heard that the lead Monkee had died, he ran down the hall of the White House yelling,”I’m the President!, I’m the President!” We can only imagine his disappointment …

[…]

The real question is, if B.O. Sr. is B.O. Jr’s daddy, why does Junior look like Frank Marshall Davis?

[…]

If he was a B l a c k teacher we would lower our flags at half mast—-why? because b l a c k s are semi-retarded—-so we feel sympathy for them.

[…]

Hey Obama, the French Muzzle-em terrorist could be Darryl, your twin brother.

[…]

Shizzle-Nizzle is such a BUFFOON! First, he orders the Holder’s corrupt Feds into a LOCAL law enforcement matter—now….

“SLAYV-VON BEE IZ ONE ‘O MAH LONG-LOST BASTUHD CHITLINS!

[…]

Hello!No, Trayvon does not have African chimpanzee ears so 0bama’s son would not look like Trayvon.

[…]

if they still lived in Africa, they would be living in huts and caves and eating one another.

[…]

Why? … cause Obama would have bought his son a hoody and baggy pants and let him roam the streets all hours of the night?

[…]

Any Obama offspring should be slaughtered including his two wh0re c, u n t daughters. Americans have payed a great price to beat back the communist and Americans will make sure it was not for nothing.

Since the late 1960s, there's been something of a "firewall" in American political discourse.  No matter how much someone may hate or fear black people, it's generally been held to be taboo to actually come out and say this.  But I suspect that this firewall's breaking down--the current standard seems that if a public figure says something horribly racist, you can more or less carry on if you tack on, "But I'm not a racist."  Gingrich and Santorum have also been pushing hard at this firewall, seeing exactly what the limits of it are.  And you also have folks just at the fringes of the mainstream right like Murray and Sailer, who are happy to show us their evidence that if only we weren't afraid to do the science, it would show that black people are stupid.

 

Murray's especially good at appealing to folks who like to strike a Bold Contrarian pose.

 

I wonder, though, if the firewall can ever fully break down.  There's been so much enculturation that racists are Bad People that even people who actively dislike non-whites will still say that they're "not racist," since, after all, they've never lynched anyone or dragged someone to death.  And even here in the deep south I've actually seen the occasional inter-racial couple.  And of course when Gingrich expresses outrage about the outrage, he's careful to couch it in terms of being outraged that Obama expressed distress that a black person was killed.

 

But I do wonder what's going to happen with the firewall especially in your quasi-media venues of the American right like Pajamas Media, American [sic] Thinker, and the like, where there's always the plausible deniability of saying that it's just someone with a blog.

I worry more about Europe

(#276943)

That's a pretty shocking list of comments there, but my impression is that typical Americans have positive views. Any coward can contribute to these boards. Actually, I worry more about Europe, and the rise of the racist right there.


In 70s and 80s, the streets of German cities were controlled by Antifa groups, funded and organized in part at least by the East German secret services. East Germany has been rolled up and the fighting activists who kept the streets clear of the fascists have grown into middle age. These days it is the fascists who have the advantage, in membership, activism, funding, willingness and ability to take the initiative and engage in violence, and hold the streets. There is nothing like this in the states as far as I know.


 

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Why the [sic]?

(#276940)
mmghosh's picture

They seem to have real American concerns at heart.  I had never heard of them, but here's a frontpage  news item.

 

[quote]Sturm, Ruger & Company, America's 4th largest gun manufacturer, announced that it has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders. Not too worry, though. This unusual problem stems from the fact that Sturm, Ruger booked over one million firearms orders in the first quarter of 2012. And the company acknowledged that, "the incoming order rate exceeds our capacity to rapidly fulfill these orders." New orders will be accepted, starting in about 60 days. Smith & Wesson and other domestic gun makers are presented with similar opportunities.[/quote]

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

"Obamacare."

(#276931)

One reason I remain a supporter of this White House is the simple fact that as often as not in a given situation they do what I would have done.

Today is the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act.

 

Since then, the law that almost everyone calls Obamacare has been doing exactly what the other side has hoped it wouldn’t do: It’s been working.

 

It’s about time we give it the love it deserves.

 

Let everyone know: “I like Obamacare.”

I've been saying it for months now: healthcare opponents' favorite slur is a badge of honor. Own it. Rush Limbaugh's already done all the PR work to get the name adopted; don't let his efforts go to waste. Apparently, the administration gets it.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

You run with that, brother!

(#276945)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

Me, I'm sorry that the admin's big party in celebration was posting somebody on a Twitter account.

I really do that it hadn't beein implemented with

(#276932)

such a long phase-in, though.

If Obama's signature legislation gets repealed

(#276937)

before it takes effect that will be a fitting monument to his post-partisanship.

 

The 2014 phase-in was an optional compromise with Republicans and a ploy for a low 10-yr. CBO score to avoid being painted as a tax and spend liberal.

Memo To Self

(#276926)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Avoid trampolines for the rest of my natural life.

Condolences to Harley and any other Yankee fans lurking around here, of course: this is an awful bit of misfortune for a major--if occasionally frustrating--talent in MLB.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Interesting

(#276927)
HankP's picture

as I recall, one of the few questions they ask in the application for a homeowners insurance policy is if you have a trampoline.

I blame it all on the Internet

Yep

(#276928)
M Scott Eiland's picture

They may or may not rate up for it, but they certainly want to know it is there--I suspect the ones who don't rate up for it or decline coverage altogether will use it as a quiet factor when considering whether to non-renew a household that starts having other claims.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Oh, they definitely charge more

(#276929)
HankP's picture

I remember the agent saying that unless someone is really attached to it, you should get rid of it. Not only for the danger of injury to household members, but because it's an "attractive nuisance". As I recall it cost more than earthquake insurance.

I blame it all on the Internet

Every Company Is Different

(#276930)
M Scott Eiland's picture

If a certain insurance company decides to style itself "friend of trampolines," it's a pretty safe bet that they're pricing up their coverage elsewhere to make up for the inevitable disasters. Kind of like how insurance companies who wouldn't tell the Mythbusters: "Yeah, we're not going to sign off on that 'shooting off a cannon in a firing range within a quarter mile of a residential neighborhood.' plan." are going to charge all their other clients more to make up the difference when the inevitable "oh, f**k" moment runs up a six or seven figure bill.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Credit where it's due

(#276906)

Obama makes what looks to be a good appointment to the World Bank. His appointment too many economic posts have been dismal. This is a nice change of pace and beats the heck out of a Wolfowitz type that might come from a Republican admin.

 

Hopefully Kim's record will bear out as some of Obama's other appts have, eg. Sotomayor. 

Memo To Governor Christie

(#276893)
M Scott Eiland's picture

There's a school principal in your state who needs to be yelled at, ridiculed, and (preferably) fired in disgrace. Could you get on that at your earliest convenience, sir?

Regards,

M. Scott Eiland

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Seriously, where have you been?

(#276894)
HankP's picture

hugging bans and no-touch rules are not unusual.

I blame it all on the Internet

All The More Reason To Start With The Smiting

(#276896)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Evidently, there's some catchup work needed regarding idiot removal.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Are you going to run for the school board?

(#276902)
HankP's picture

because if you actually want to change anything, that's where it starts. And I thought conservatives valued local control?

I blame it all on the Internet

Are You Going To Run For The Chinese Politburo? -nt-

(#276908)
M Scott Eiland's picture

.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

I can't run for the Chinese politburo

(#276912)
HankP's picture

you, however, can easily run for the school board.

I blame it all on the Internet

In New Jersey?

(#276914)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Of all of the vapid pseudo-chickenhawk arguments trotted out in this Forvm, that is the latest.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Of course not in New Jersey

(#276917)
HankP's picture

in Beaverton, where you can use your influence to keep the hugging ban at West Sylvan School (just a few short miles away rom Beaverton) from getting implemented in the Beaverton schools. After all, since conservatives like local control that means you need to get involved in local politics to make sure that local idiots don't implement stupid policies.

I blame it all on the Internet

Still Not In Beaverton. . .

(#276918)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .and it's still a vapid pseudo-chickenhawk argument.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Money says

(#276923)

"hey where is your mouth?"

As opposed to an argument from apathy nt

(#276920)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

There's likely

(#276903)

a recruitment center nearby as well.

Yeah, they just put in.....

(#276895)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

You say that....

(#276879)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

....like it's a bad thing, MA!  The worst things in the world are "fired up" electorates.  It's not like all of the emotional investment makes them any smarter, and that's pretty touch-and-go in the best of times.

 

Anyway, anybody signed up for Goodreads? http://www.goodreads.com/

 

Ricky, Ricky, Ricky

(#276838)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Immolating yourself with a bottle of Everclear and a Zippo would have been an infinitely more dignified method of self-annihilation than this.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

I was under the impression

(#276860)
brutusettu's picture

that the "etch a sketch" quote wasn't talking about Romney's "core" values/positions, but just the one's highlighted in campaigning, more or less.

Regardless, out of the 3 that currently have a snowballs chance in robot hell to get in and win the general election, we have a bunch of winners running for POTUS.

It was a stupid thing to say

(#276865)
HankP's picture

but the fact is that every politician does the same thing between primaries and general elections.

I blame it all on the Internet

More unintended consequences

(#276790)

from the Libya intervention:  Rebel Mali Soldiers Seize Power.

It appears the elected government of Mali has been overthrown by military officers unhappy with the government's response to the Tuareg rebellion, which in turn was being run by pro-Gaddafi Tuareg expats who returned from Libya when their side lost.  Apparently Niger is in trouble also.

Meanwhile Libya itself may be headed for a break-up as the East declares autonomy, and the new people in Tripoli are threatening them with violence if they don't back down. Sounds familiar. Are we planning to intervene to protect the east half every time it rebels against the west half?

A Certain Former Libyan Dictator's Son

(#276897)

predicted such an outcome.

 

Colorfully, iirc.

 

As long the squabling doesn't interfere with the oil flow.

 

Or interferes just enough to keep the markets nervous.

Precisely right.

(#276899)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

"As long the squabling doesn't interfere with the oil flow."  After that, who cares?

A Small Step, But An Unanimous One

(#276744)
M Scott Eiland's picture

USSC smacks down EPA 9-0, eliminating Catch 22 situation faced by landowners.

This reasoning should be applied to the IRS--a taxpayer should have a right to force a determination of what the correct tax situation is if there is uncertainty and a penalty for choosing wrong, or the IRS should be forced to waive any penalties and interest if they can't be bothered to take a f***ing position and stick to it.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Huh?

(#276751)
HankP's picture

Everything I read says that the only thing this ruling does is allow property owners to challenge administrative orders in court. It's very narrow and doesn't say anything about forcing determination, penalties, or anything else.

I blame it all on the Internet

Huh

(#276785)
Bird Dog's picture

Only if you want to define due process as "very narrow".

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Read the opinion

(#276812)
HankP's picture

then tell me how widely applicable it is. Because it's not.

I blame it all on the Internet

Maybe you should read it

(#276880)
Bird Dog's picture

The key passages.

Ginsburg:

The Court holds that the Sacketts may immediately litigate their jurisdictional challenge in federal court. I agree, for the Agency has ruled definitively on that question. Whether the Sacketts could challenge not only the EPA’s authority to regulate their land under the Clean Water Act, but also, at this pre-enforcement stage, the terms and conditions of the compliance order, is a question today’s opinion does not reach out to resolve. Not raised by the Sacketts here, the question remains open for another day and case. On that understanding, I join the Court’s opinion.

Alito:

Allowing aggrieved property owners to sue under the Administrative Procedure Act is better than nothing, but only clarification of the reach of the Clean Water Act can rectify the underlying problem.

The main issue was whether the Sackett’s could challenge the EPA’s assertion of jurisdiction and EPA's claim that the Sacketts violated their regulations. The USSC unanimously said "yes", they could challenge, i.e., they have an avenue of recourse to appeal the charges. In other words, they get their day in court. Although narrow, it still comes down to the petitioners having the right to due process.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

And maybe you should read more than just Scalia

(#276890)
HankP's picture

specifically what the Natural Resources Defense Council found when they did a FOIA request and got the full story on what the Sacketts did in this case (pdf, start on page 11).

 

In summary -

 

- The Sacketts started work on the property without applying for a permit, even though they knew their property was considered wetlands

 

- The EPA was there three days after they started work, told them that they were on wetlands, and cautioned them to apply for a permit before continuing any work

 

- The owners hired a professional wetland scientist, who told them that the property was wetland.

 

- The ACE and the EPA provided permit applications to the Sacketts and recommended that they fill them out and file them.

 

- The Sacketts lied in their suit, claiming that all this was a surprise to them and that they had no idea that they hadn't filed the necessary permit applications. They also lied in stating that they had no idea that their property was covered by the Clean Water Act.

 

- They also lied in stating that they had no opportunity to challenge the EPA compliance order, as the order expressly provided petitioners a chance to redress any allegations in the Order that they believed to be inaccurate.

 

- They also lied in claiming that the permits would be "ruinously expensive", similar permits for single family lots range from $2000 - 10,000.

 

So despite Scalia's usual BS and the supporting BS posted here, it's clear that this wasn't a case of some power mad government agency but instead some lying property owners who got caught doing something illegal and didn't want to pay for it.

 

My guess is that they will lose in court, and badly.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Another Thing They Teach In Law School. . .

(#276922)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .is to read the little section at the start of the opinion where it states what opinions the Justices signed onto. Sometimes it's a real mess, as some Justices only sign onto certain parts of the "majority opinion"--meaning that it takes a good long reading together with a Ouija Board to figure out what parts are actually binding precedent (the parts that got at least five votes). In this case, there was no mystery:

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. GINSBURG,J., and ALITO, J., filed concurring opinions

Making the whining about Scalia a little pathetic, since the entire Court--including former ACLU lawyers, wise Latinas, and former Obama Administration members who don't feel the need to recuse themselves in matters they were directly involved in--signed onto it. As for the amicus curiae brief from a party with an axe to grind, why yes--it looks as if there is a disagreement about what the facts are. Maybe there should be, oh, I don't know, a judicial procedure to sort out who's telling the truth here. Which the Court agreed with, in spite of the hysterical protests of the EPA and their fellow travelers. Nine-f***ing-zero.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Like I said

(#276924)
HankP's picture

they ruled on the narrow technical point of the ability to sue, not on the merits of the case. Which stink for the plaintiffs since there's so much evidence that they've lied repeatedly.

 

I'm willing to bet that the plaintiffs lose in court. Any takers?

I blame it all on the Internet

Yes and no

(#276815)

It's narrow in the sense that it rules only on interpretation of one part of one particular federal statute, rather than defining a new constitutional principle.  But the tone and style send a broad message that the Supremes won't tolerate bureaucrats using word tricks and double definitions to evade the law - the Supremes reserve that privilege to themselves - and the unanimous ruling indicates that this is a consensus that isn't going to be changed by a few new appointments to the court.

Kept narrow

(#276868)

to avoid hostages to fortune. Who knows, DHS might want to issue administrative detention orders that are provisional and permanent.

Not really

(#276818)
HankP's picture

they could have made a wide ruling concerning all regulations, or even all EPA regulations, or even the clean water act. But they didn't, they restricted their opinion to allowing people to bring suit to challenge compliance orders. That's the extent of it. They specifically say that they're not ruling on the merits of the case.

I blame it all on the Internet

The Supreme Court Doesn't Work That Way

(#276822)
M Scott Eiland's picture

A narrow issue was presented, and the EPA completely lost on that issue. The EPA/Obama Administration even had the gall to argue that if they faced judicial review of their orders, they wouldn't issue as many of them. Sounds like they didn't agree with your (non-legally based) view that this isn't a big deal.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Horrors!

(#276882)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

"if they faced judicial review of their orders, they wouldn't issue as many of them"

You even said it was a narrow decision

(#276828)
HankP's picture

so now it's not?

I blame it all on the Internet

A Narrow Decision Can Also Be A Very Big Deal

(#276832)
M Scott Eiland's picture

This one comes to mind.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

AHAHA

(#276834)
HankP's picture

you're comparing this ruling with Marbury v. Madison? Really?

I blame it all on the Internet

A Little Dispute That Settled A Big Principle

(#276835)
M Scott Eiland's picture

There's a reason they send people to law school for three years, Hank.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Which is what this case doesn't do

(#276846)
HankP's picture

there are no big principals at stake here. Property owners can challenge a specific finding, but nothing in this invalidates the idea that the EPA can make and enforce these findings. The EPA is still there and still has the ability to write and enforce environmental regulations.

I blame it all on the Internet

Which Can Be Challenged In Court. . .

(#276849)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .and the EPA isn't allowed to argue "but we really haven't made a decision yet" and thereby deny judicial review while holding big fines over landowners' heads. That's a lot of "soft" power gone, and other agencies will rightfully fear it being applied to them.

It's silly to argue that because the decision didn't reduce the EPA to a smoking crater that it wasn't significant--can you link to any actual lawyers who are making the argument that you are? There are plenty of lefty lawyers out there who would argue that position enthusiastically, if it were a reasonable one.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Like I said, be careful what you wish for

(#276851)
HankP's picture

there's several reasons why agencies keep directives ambiguous, and with the EPA it's arguably because the science would lead to more stringent requirements, not looser ones.

I blame it all on the Internet

Don't view this as

(#276821)

environmentalists vs developers,  that wasn't the point.  The point was the whether the APA applied, and the APA covers a wide range of federal agencies. Allowing appeals of "arbitrary and capricious" rulings is a broadly applicable principle.

Yes, but that's a narrow decision by definition

(#276830)
HankP's picture

that is, compliance orders are appealable in civil court. It doesn't do anything else about the structure and process of compliance orders.

I blame it all on the Internet

You're saying

(#276836)

having recourse vs not having recourse isn't a big deal?   I think both the people receiving compliance orders and those issuing them think it's a big difference.

 

It's not Marbury vs Madison but it's taken away a tool from regulators, and not just at the EPA.

You need to put this in context

(#276845)
HankP's picture

the clean water act is quite vague in many ways and allows the EPA to define a lot of the terms that are used in enforcing it. In the past the SC has issued wider rulings on what qualifies as "waters", for example, within the context of the act itself. But - and this is the big but - it's never questioned the ability of the EPA to make those definitions and enforce them. This ruling gives property owners the right to contest these findings in particular cases, but still doesn't redefine the rights of the EPA to define the terms and conditions of the clean water act. So property owners may contest these findings, but as far as I can tell all lower courts have upheld the ability of the EPA to issue and enforce these regulations and only requires that they be internally consistent with the wording of the act.

 

My impression is that occasionally a property owner may succeed by proving some kind of procedural error on the part of the EPA. But the bigger issue - and the one that Republicans really want - is to remove the ability of the EPA to regulate water management at all and actually dismantle the entire agency. This doesn't even come close to doing anything like that, in fact it reinforces the fact that the EPA does indeed have the power to regulate environmental issues.

I blame it all on the Internet

Actually, no I don't

(#276856)

need to put in context, because the context doesn't matter.  I think you're so hoppin' mad about Republican attitudes toward the environment that you're missing your own point - this was not about the limits of the EPA's regulatory powers.  It was about the general power of any regulatory agency subject to APA to deny anyone due process by gaming the definition of "final decision", and it applies in all kinds of contexts.

The case just happened to be about a Clean Water Act regulation, the same way that Wickard v Filburn just happened to be about wheat allotments, but opened up the commerce clause interpretation that justified most of what the feds currently regulate.

I'll have to remember

(#276864)
HankP's picture

that context doesn't matter. Sure you want to go there?

I blame it all on the Internet

Yep

(#276840)
M Scott Eiland's picture

The IRS will not be happy if taxpayers start challenging their rulings based on this precedent--its logical consequences would take a lot of their power to intimidate away.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Reading between the lines

(#276759)

it appears that the EPA was trying to have it both ways:  we issued an order,  you have to obey it right now because it's our final decision, but you can't challenge it, because it's not really final.  What the Supremes said is that the EPA can't try to make an order simulataneously mandatory but unchallengeable.

Sure, but it just allows challenges

(#276771)
HankP's picture

it specifically did not rule on any wider issue.

I blame it all on the Internet

Jones v. Clinton Didn't, Either

(#276777)
M Scott Eiland's picture

The fact that the challenge was allowed in the first place will let other things happen--and the EPA will quietly cease issuing orders that will not stand reasonable scrutiny in court, or they will start losing those cases in court when they foolishly issue the orders anyway.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Maybe

(#276779)
HankP's picture

be careful what you wish for, the EPA could decide to brioadly interpret the clean water act and then you'd be unhappy again.

I blame it all on the Internet

At Which Point They Would Be Challenged In Congress. . .

(#276824)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .and possibly in court. Not to mention it would be handing Republicans a big fat political gift.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Ha

(#276831)
HankP's picture

congress ain't doing anything until one side gets a veto proof majority. Dream on.

I blame it all on the Internet

Yep

(#276761)
M Scott Eiland's picture

That situation was an utterly despicable denial of due process--one hopes that the 9-0 smackdown will get the message across to the EPA and other agencies.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

An individual taxpayer, sure...

(#276746)

But a corporation dumping tons of poison into a river should not be able to slow enforcement for years by lawyering up against the EPA.

 

I'd need to see the exact ruling and read more about its implications before running around with my hair on fire, though. There seems to be more than one interpretation on the practical scope of the ruling. We'll see.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Is there much Iran war rhetoric around?

(#276717)
mmghosh's picture

-

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Not realy...

(#276745)

But there seems to be some convergence among some pundits I read that Israel is gaining confidence their attack would work. By Israel I mean Netanyahu and his people.

 

I have a New Yorker from 1999 that I kept around for some reason, and it happens to have a long piece on Netanyahu. If he is still the same guy, and I doubt he's changed much, he's probably listening to a very small group of people. If so, a groupthink scenario is possible, and we are talking about a group more likely to talk itself into bombing Iran than otherwise.

 

It also does not hurt that Netanyahu does not like Obama at all (in fairnes, it's mutual) and would rather see a Republican in office. Probably one well to the right of Romney, but he'll take what he can get.

 

So, a properly timed strike would hurt Iran and, as if to sweenten the deal, could blow a hole into Obama's election plans. It's got to be tempting...

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Fortunately

(#276737)

it seems to have lightened up slightly over the last couple weeks.  Romney is arguably softer on Iran than Hillary was in 2008, he hasn't threatened to "obliterate" them yet,  and Obama is parsing his words carefully.

Of course if the Israelis start something we could get dragged in, but the fact that they are pressuring us to back them up proves they aren't confident about going it alone.

Always in Presidential elections, since 1980. -nt-

(#276722)

.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Obama doesn't have to fire up the base

(#276711)
HankP's picture

the GOP is doing it for him. And if you're looking at two bland, technocratic moderates, Obama is slightly less bland and quite a bit more moderate.

 

But of course the economy will decide who wins, excepting some really crazy move by either candidate.

I blame it all on the Internet