What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[viper37]

The violence and rioting is probably not a great strategic move. Presuming that is part of some kind of charm offensive.

Not that it will matter one bit, but colleagues who teach at Berkeley, and who were at the demonstration, told me it was pretty clear that it was a small organized, outside group who clearly sought to violently disrupt the demonstration. (and no, neither they, nor I are suggesting any sort of conspiracy).

The poeple who organize protests should seek measure to avoid such things.  It's always easy to claim after the fact they were outside forces.   

Was the word passed before hand, on more than one occasion that it was to be a peaceful protest?
Did they hire a security service or have people actively seeking disruptors to shut them down?
Did they take any step at all to prevent such violence?

Usually, it's a fail in all 3.  Then, "it happens".  Just like sending a guy working 24' in the air, no harness, on a icy roof, and sometimes, he falls.   "It's an accident" just doesn't cut it.

[mongers]

What was this mornings Iran tweet caused by?

a. more indignation over ballistic missile test.

b. a difficult bowel movement.

c. Melania not putting out last night.

[viper37]

so today I learned what a health insurance deductible is. $7000 wtf. now i hate obamacare. repeal!

you want to repeal Healthcare laws because of your own failure to understand basic insurance theory?

[Solmyr]

My town is 80% Californians. The New California Republic would go Putin on us to "protect" them. 

I don't think California would want to annex Nevada. No.

They'll just reach an agreement with the rangers and take over New Vegas.

[Grey Fox]

What was this mornings Iran tweet caused by?

a. more indignation over ballistic missile test.

b. a difficult bowel movement.

c. Melania not putting out last night.

Melania is not in Washington.

[mongers]

What was this mornings Iran tweet caused by?

a. more indignation over ballistic missile test.

b. a difficult bowel movement.

c. Melania not putting out last night.

Melania is not in Washington.

You're a laugh a minute.

[viper37]

Apples and oranges, Frenchie.

True. In this instance, military personnel concluded that Trump acted without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations. Not in Benghazi's case.

You don't understand basic military strategy.
Republican operation: success.
Democrat operation: failure at best, border line criminal act.

[garbon]

So lovely how Conway blamed refugees for an American massacre that never happened...

[Caliga]

It's cute that mongers things Trump bangs Melania on any kind of regular basis, or at all.

They're both banging other people, most likely (maybe not Trump since he's pretty old).

[The Minsky Moment]

as you know, private corporations are treated differently under corporate law than publicly held corporations.

This is an incorrect statement of law.  It's not surprising to hear it stated because it is a common belief, and apparently one shared by Alito and other justices who themselves have little or no corporate law background.  In fact, state corporation statutes do not typically distinguish between public and private corporations.  That is a federal law concept, deriving from the 33 and 34 Acts.

What is true is that a minority of states recognize a sub-category of private companies as close corporation.  So, e.g. in Delaware a private corporation that meets certain restrictions can elect to be act and be treated akin to a partnership - essentially kind of an LP without a general partner.  But it is still a corporation - there is still formal separation between the entity and its shareholders as indeed must be the case for limited liability to attach. 

Moreoever, most state corporation statutes don't even recognize the close corporation distinction.  New York doesn't for example.  So if Gorsuch or the Supreme Court majority in Hobby Lobby were truly relying on such a distinction, they would be forced to acknowledge that the rights they found to exist would vary and depend on the state of corporate registration.  Of course they didn't do this - because the entire decision is premised on making an uttery mockery of legal concept of a corporation in the first place.

and the opinion explains it isn't saying any shareholder in a private corporation has standing, it's saying controlling shareholders in a private corporation have such a hold on the corporation that they're affected as well as the corporation in this specific situation.

That is indeed what the opinion says.  And it is a legal absurdity.  An absurdity based on a deliberate misreading of language in Alcan about  "direct, personal interest."  Alcan was imply stating the obvious proposition that a shareholder can always bring suit if they have their own direct, personal interest "in the cause of action".  I.e. in corporate law speak, if the shareholders have direct as well as derivative claims.  This is such an obvious, unexceptional proposition that the Alcan court didn't even bother to cite any authority for it.  And the discussion that follows makes that clear, because it is in inquiry into whether that shareholders  suffered "direct injuries independent of their status as shareholders" or whether their injuries are derivative of their ownership interests in the entity.  The other case that Gorsuch cites also makes that clear - the shareholders had standing to sue, because even if they were unaffiliated with the company, the regulation would prevent them from carrying on their trade. - again, separate harm, direct cause of action.

What Gorsuch therefore does with this unhelpful doctrine is deliberately mis-state it.  Instead of requiring direct, personal interest in the cause of action itself - i.e. a right entirely independent of the entity and unrelated to their status as shareholder - he restates it as a direct, personal interest in the subject matter of the dispute.  And that is a totally unworkable standard.  It will almost always be the case that shareholders have some personal interest in the subject matter of a corporate dispute.  If Gorsuch's reading of Alcan were accpeted, the shareholder standing rule would be rendered a nullity and critical distinction between shareholders and the corporation would be eroded - albeit only offensively - where the shareholders seek to use the reach of the corporation to aggrandize the scope and reach of their own individual and personal interest, desires, and mores.  Defensively of course (e.g. limited liability/standing of those wronged by the corp to sue shareholders), the shareholders would continue to insist on the most careful and punctilious application of corporate formality.

gorsuch's separate convinced two other circuit court judges as I'm sure you know but isn't mentioned in your post . . . there were multiple valid interpretations here, and you agree with one, but that doesn't make the other(s) wrong or crazy

Yes this isn't the first time you've made this kind of appeal to authority - i.e. suggesting an argument has credence simply because  a few judges endorse it.  I differ on that.  Perhaps I've seen too many appellate decision to be overly impressed by the supposed infallibilities of judicial reasoning.  No fewer than 6 Supreme court justices ruled against Korematsu and some still defend that decision today.  There are many times when judges differ on which potentially valid interpretation to take.  But sometimes judges are just wrong.  Unfortunately it does happen - and often in cases like this, where the judge has little background in the relevant area of law, but extremely strong ideological views concerning the interest at stake.  Not the first time, not the last.

[Eddie Teach]

What's with all the Canadian stalkers in this thread? Creepy. 

[FunkMonk]

Hope Hicks' office is right next to the Oval Office. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

Not that I've seen, seems like a valid interpretation of the RFRA--which was bad law, but law nonetheless.

There's nothing in RFRA that would suggest that corporate shareholders have separate and independent *personal* standing to redress alleged wrongs to the corporation.  RFRA may do lots of things, but it doesn't turn state corporate law on its head.

It's been awhile since I looked at the Hobby Lobby stuff so maybe I'm mis-remembering, but didn't they look at the Dictionary Act to determine what the RFRA meant by "person" and found that it meant corporations, too?

[Syt]

So lovely how Conway blamed refugees for an American massacre that never happened...

[OttoVonBismarck]

Makes for a fun soundbite though.

Anyway, sounds like Dems really just need to encourage, somehow, for their bases to not stick to cities and start colonizing the lesser ahem, Republican states. They've a large base, it is just rather concentrated.

Yeah, surprise surprise the two of you don't see things like a red stater with a side-by-side in his garage does. The bathroom issue was a serious cultural "flash point" for them. The safe space/college nonsense has reverberations way outside of those campuses, and contributes to the red staters viewing Democrats as representative of a foreign, and detestable culture of "pussyfication" (I'm not sure a genteel way of saying it--but trust me the Trump voters probably just call it faggotry.)

There's genuine cultural panic among a large swathe of the majority ethnic group in America. Part of it is from the stagnation of wages, the glacial rebound of wage growth after the 2008 recession, the cultural shock of gay marriage followed up by what they see as "forced acceptance" of something they consider beyond weird (transgender people), and the latent racial panic of increasing numbers of brown and black people in their communities (often manifested in narratives about how welfare programs are just ways for dark-skinned people to work off the taxes they pay out of their pay checks.)

Aww, so we just got to create a safe space for these individuals? Fuck that noise. I've no empathy for people who have none for me.

Nah--I wasn't making any proposals to be honest. Frankly, I think this generation of whites of a certain age are simply lost to you. There's nothing you can do to change that. There's two things to look at going forward:

1. Hillary (a historically bad candidate) still would've beaten this coalition of "old America" if blacks in places like Detroit and Milwaukee had turned out like normal, and the disaffected lefties who refused to vote for her had stayed in the fold. She had slightly lower party loyalty among Democratic voters than Trump did among Republican voters, and in an election that swung on close margins in a few states, that mattered.

2. While Democrats likely are set up good for the next Presidential election (Trump guarantees you'll have a much smaller "stay at home" or "vote Stein" effect), this "lost generation" of white America is going to make it very hard for Democrats to get the House back anytime soon, and the Senate is probably Republican another 2-3 elections.

The best bet for you is these people die off and their kids end up being less conservative.