Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

Followers

290

Following

714

Posts

Jew. Mostly leftist. Most people refer to me with the pronouns "he/him" and I acquiesce in this.

Posts Replies Media

Reply to

Nicholas Campiz

That's what this meeting is actually about

One of the problems in discourse is that people have a hard time with probabilities that are way less than 50% but still likely enough to be very worrisome and I think some of the scenarios about "what happens if Trump wins" are in this bucket

This argument that Title IX and Title VII are different because one uses "because of" and the other uses "on the basis of" does not pass the laugh test. (Tbf it's not the only argument in the opinion)

Sutton writes, joined by Batchelder. Mathis dissents. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

storage.courtlistener.com

I think if you are Gorsuch or Roberts and want to distinguish Bostock, the Pennhurst spending clause argument is more promising, though to me it is pretty weird (does Pennhurst really mean that we decide every ambiguity in a Spending Clause statute in favor of the state?)

There is a deep point here that Ramaswamy is unintentionally making, which is that "rebellion" as such is morally and politically empty. It all depends on the substance. Some mainstream norms are oppressive and others are critical to our ability to live and prosper together

Just what the GOP needs - mote youth pastor vibes

Reply to

Robert Black

But certiorari was an alternative to mandatory appellate jurisdiction, that over time swallowed up all of the Court's mandatory docket (a handful of special cases aside). I don't think that tells us whether Congress could subject any appellate jurisdiction to a supermajority vote

My instinct here may be more functionalist than yours but I think if Congress can't require a supermajority to resolve a case it also can't require a supermajority to hear it, since it gets you to the same place: a Court thwarted in fulfilling its constitutional role as last resort appellate court

Reply to

Russell Steinthal

This thought occurred to me. I think there is a good argument that for appellate jurisdiction to perform its constitutional function it must be able to be exercised at least on a majority vote, since multimember courts act by majority. But not much law on this

Is the Biden Administration even trying to restrain Netanyahu anymore? Are they just distracted?

Reply to

Robert Black

if you set up a High Court of Appeals with appellate jurisdiction over the COAs but not subject to certiorari I think you run into Article III problems: is the Supreme Court still "one supreme court"? if HCA an "inferior" court? is the strip of certiorari jurisdiction an "exception"?

some of this applies to your first proposal too of course.

Reply to

Robert Black

I don't think we would like the results of a Fifth Circuit unconstrained by certiorari

Reposted by

Indiscreet Function

Is Ohio Ballot Access Deadline a Reason for Democrats to Push through a Virtual Roll Call Vote Before the Convention to Choose Joe Biden? Almost Certainly Not electionlawblog.org?p=144570

Is Ohio Ballot Access Deadline a Reason for Democrats to Push through a Virtual Roll Call Vote Before the Convention to Choose Joe Biden? Almost Certainly Not #ELBelectionlawblog.org After a warning from the Ohio Secretary of State that the Democrats’ late convention would come too late to notify Ohio to put its nominee on the ballot, Democrats decided to hold a virtual roll call ...

A poll result being within the margin of error does not mean the race is "statistically tied" and (relatedly) a poll's margin of error is not the main source of error in a polling average, or in an election model built around aggregating polling.

The margin of error reflects sampling error and aggregating polls reduces it. What happens when "the polls are wrong" is systematic error: undecideds break sharply in one direction at the last minute, or pollsters do a bad job weighting their results to reflect the actual electorate that shows up

Today there are at least three important potential sources of polling "error" aside from the (less important) MOE: - undecided voters - a bit less than four months for news to happen and attitudes to shift - pollsters not accurately modeling the electorate

That's a fair amount of uncertainty. It's absolutely correct that from a polling standpoint the election is winnable for Biden. But he is the underdog, the race is not tied, even a small gap in the polling average is consequential in probabilistic terms

Right call and I think Schumer will listen

NJ gov. Phil Murphy: “If [Menendez] refuses to vacate his office, I call on the U.S. Senate to vote to expel him.”

Reply to

Dan Lavoie

this is not the 538 model used in previous election cycles (Nate Silver owns that one) but a new model that is weighting economic fundamentals more than its competitors. it is very likely way too optimistic about Biden (though it's true that Biden is like 25-30%, not <10%, in Silver's model)

Reply to

Michael

why is this weirder than the Trump voters who voted Dem in 2018

Reposted by

Indiscreet Function

AP: Sen. Bob Menendez convicted of taking bribes paid in gold and a luxury car. Verdict still being read at corruption trial.

It's not virtuous to exaggerate in favor of a good cause--it's corrosive to making good judgments. And it's not wrong to push back against exaggerations even if the underlying problem is very serious. Not appreciating this is part of why so many left spaces tend toward hyperbolic doomerism

Reply to

Public Universal Fiend

just in that rent control normally does--likely to get a negative reaction from Dem-leaning economists and pundits and some electeds will listen

Reply to

Public Universal Fiend

If it works I have no complaints. I'm not sure how this will be received though, since it's likely to split Democrats

5% is too low for a rent increase cap. Biden's plan would only apply for two years, which means that, even if enacted (which is unlikely), it wouldn't drive too much of a wedge between the rent-regulated price and the market price. But it would be bad if 5% became the standard ask in blue states

Feels very much like a half-baked plan proposed for electoral reasons: not tied to CPI; exempts half of rental units with its <50 units exemption; lasts only two years; ostensibly just a condition on a tax benefit, but the tax benefit is the depreciation deduction, which is v important for landlords

Though the value of the depreciation deduction is going to depend on the amount of for-tax-purposes capital expenses tied to a building in the past few decades, so it could vary a lot from landlord to landlord on essentially arbitrary grounds. Not fully baked

5%+CPI would be reasonable--I think that's the good-cause proposal in NYS.

Not sure this level of split-ticket voting is untenable this year, since the public has widespread doubts about Biden's age and capacity. But between "Biden will rise" or "Senate candidates will fall," my bet would be the higher-salience election dominates

I think basically everyone agrees these divides are untenable and unrealistic in modern politics, where split ticket voting has all but disappeared where you come down on Biden right now basically depends on if you think he’ll trend towards the Senate candidates or they will trend toward him

Reply to

Indiscreet Function

Trump is a major threat of course, and that will put pressure on people not to defect, but one problem with using that strategy to strongarm the rest of the party into line is that many Democrats see Biden's failure to step aside as an electoral boon to Trump for the sake of Biden's ego