The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

Hate to double post but we have our first results. Handel is currently leading by 2.8% or so with 73,360 votes in, mostly early votes it looks like. Early votes totaled 140,000, so this is far from over. However, if Ossoff doesn't raise his margins by the time the early vote is counted, his odds of winning are slim.

http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/georgia-special-election-results-2017-ossoff-handel-race/

I like this version better because it has a breakdown by precinct. If you compare this map to the April primary, the results are pretty consistent, with each candidate capturing the same area. For Ossoff to win, he has to flip at least a few precincts from the GOP. We'll have a better idea where the race is going once precincts are fully counted and colored accordingly.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/georgia-south-carolina-special-elections/?lpup=22818801#livepress-update-22818801

 

FiveThirtyEight has a neat little map to show approximately how much of the vote Ossoff is going to want to carry in each county to win.

[Burnt Ash]

South Carolina's 5th District also had a special election today to fill in Mick Mulvaney's old seat. It seems that the Norman will win, keeping the seat Republican, but Parnell's supposedly beat most expectations.

 

EDIT: Handel's projected to win GA-06: https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/georgia-sixth-congressional-district-special/

[Tani Coyote]

In today's 4 races, no seats changed hands. However, we have seen the usual increase in Democratic margins. Mick Mulvaney normally carried the South Carolina 5th with 60% of the vote, but his successor only carried it 51%. By contrast, Tom Price carried the Georgia 6th with 62% last year (and 66% in 2014), but Handel only carried it with 52%.

Now, the South Carolina 5th had lower turnout than usual, but this is precisely what causes the midterm effect in the first place. If every single person regularly voted, we'd see little change in the government. But the tendency of opposition voters to turn out more causes seats to routinely flip.

The next big races are in November, and will probably be more predictive of how the GOP will do in 2018 than these races. After those races, we'll also get an idea of the candidate field for 2018, and we have to remember candidates can be just as important as Party; a lot of Trump's support wasn't for him, but simple opposition to Clinton.

[Dizcrybe]

Given that Dems haven't been winning so far, I don't expect anything to come of November.

[Patticus]

I don't have the time to make a detailed post, but G6 was expected, a relief and disappointing in equal measure.

It was expected because a single digit win in either direction would have fit the polling and general modeling done by groups like 538 perfectly. The polling, in short, was not off.

It was a relief because the 4 point win by Handel falls in line with a 15 year leftward trend in the district - in almost every election since '02, the GOP margin of victory has shrank considerably. It will be a district in play next year, and given the painfully slow trend to the left, it could very easily be flipped.

It was disappointing, despite the predictable result, because the Democrats needed to claim more than just a moral victory, a promise of "We'll get them next time!" in this Special Election - they needed to take Handel's metaphorical scalp. The race quickly became a referendum on Trump's red state support, whether the Democrats could successfully woo reluctant Trump supporters, plus his agenda and GOP policies in general. Clearly he still commands the support of most of his base, and clearly they're still ready to turn out in support of his policies.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/ron-johnson-health-care-cnntv/index.html

GOP Senator Johnson of Wisconsin has said he will not vote yes on the Senate bill if it's not reviewed publicly so his constituents can voice their opinion on it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-health-care-draft-repeals-obamacare-taxes-provides-bigger-subsidies-for-low-income-americans-than-house-bill/2017/06/21/3f2226ee-56bd-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html?utm_term=.4096dd27d7b4

We have a leaked draft, however.

It's basically the same as the House bill - eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood, rolling back Medicaid, etc. - with a few differences. The House bill's language restricting federal funds for abortions has been struck out because it could conflict with reconciliation, while premiums are being tied to income rather than age, a la what the ACA currently proposes. Medicaid will remain intact until 2021, after which it will see drastic cuts over the course of 3 years. It's expected this is to win over the moderate Senators who want to make sure it's not drastically cut until they've been re-elected.

This isn't a final bill, however. The Planned Parenthood provision will surely run afoul of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who tend to break with the GOP on abortion rights, while other Senators may not be comfortable with the Medicaid provisions or the continued elimination of pre-existing conditions.

Even if they do alter the bill to pass the Senate, it still has to pass the House. It's going to be a long slog.

Unfortunately, the GOP probably feels little incentive to shelve healthcare given their continued victories in special elections.

13 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

Given that Dems haven't been winning so far, I don't expect anything to come of November.

They've already taken two state House seats in districts that were historically Republican. Dems are net +1 for this year, though, because they didn't run a candidate in a district that votes 67-33 Democrat most of the time, so it went to the GOP.

It's worth noting the bulk of these special races were safely red seats; the average shift towards Democrats has been 10 points, but that's not enough to win most of these races. Trump may not be that bright, but someone in that administration is being smart and making sure they don't appoint people from swing areas.

Virginia and New Jersey are safely swingy, leaning Dem. We'll have an idea where Democrats really stand 5 months from now.

Anyway, I do hope that despite your pessimism you'll still be making a point to turn out in November 2018.

[Dizcrybe]

I mean, I will, but I'm not expecting much to come out of it.

[SSF1991]

11 hours ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

Virginia and New Jersey are safely swingy, leaning Dem. We'll have an idea where Democrats really stand 5 months from now.

I wouldn't say that. Well, for Virginia, anyway.

Virginia has been turning blue for quite some time, since 2008. Before then, my state was your average Southern one. It was one of those reliable GOP states for decades, for roughly 50 years. Before Obama, LBJ was the last Democrat to get Virginia's electoral votes. I remember in elementary school, which was almost 15 years ago, and seeing many Confederate flags flying around. I don't see that as much now, although there was that recent Confederate monument "alt-right" rally thing that happened not too long ago. Sometimes I will get reminders that my state still has a significant conservative population. But it's not on the scale it used to be. I hear and see just as much liberal/left influence in Virginia now, and it seems to be increasing in frequency.

My state is blue now. Maybe even solid blue. It voted for Hillary by 5% in 2016, even with the political climate being the way it was. In fact, that percentage is only 1% lower than the amount Obama got in 2008 and 1% higher than what he got in 2012. Yes, Hillary got a higher percentage of votes in 2016 than Obama got for his last term in 2012. In Virginia, amusingly.

I think it's the same reason that states like Texas, Nevada, and others have been seeing. The Latino population has been soaring in my state. In fact, I've noticed the change in my own neighborhood, something I couldn't say 10 years ago. lol

The GOPs odds are not with them in this state anymore. And they get worse every year. I'm not too worried about my state's elections later this year, but I have been keeping it in the back of my mind, just in case.

[Tani Coyote]

17 hours ago, SSF1991 said:

I wouldn't say that. Well, for Virginia, anyway.

Virginia has been turning blue for quite some time, since 2008. Before then, my state was your average Southern one. It was one of those reliable GOP states for decades, for roughly 50 years. Before Obama, LBJ was the last Democrat to get Virginia's electoral votes. I remember in elementary school, which was almost 15 years ago, and seeing many Confederate flags flying around. I don't see that as much now, although there was that recent Confederate monument "alt-right" rally thing that happened not too long ago. Sometimes I will get reminders that my state still has a significant conservative population. But it's not on the scale it used to be. I hear and see just as much liberal/left influence in Virginia now, and it seems to be increasing in frequency.

My state is blue now. Maybe even solid blue. It voted for Hillary by 5% in 2016, even with the political climate being the way it was. In fact, that percentage is only 1% lower than the amount Obama got in 2008 and 1% higher than what he got in 2012. Yes, Hillary got a higher percentage of votes in 2016 than Obama got for his last term in 2012. In Virginia, amusingly.

I think it's the same reason that states like Texas, Nevada, and others have been seeing. The Latino population has been soaring in my state. In fact, I've noticed the change in my own neighborhood, something I couldn't say 10 years ago. lol

The GOPs odds are not with them in this state anymore. And they get worse every year. I'm not too worried about my state's elections later this year, but I have been keeping it in the back of my mind, just in case.

I'm just noting there are very few states that are truly monopolized by one Party, as each Party can communicate a different message in different regions (precisely why Republicans work so hard to tie every Democrat to Pelosi, ignoring some of the most conservative members of Congress in the past two decades were Democrats). So while Virginia has become safely blue at the Presidential level, it can still end up in the GOP's hands in state races.

Compare how Alaska is reliably Republican in Presidential races, but is very competitive at the state level. Candidates for Governorships have a unique opportunity to 1) separate themselves from the national party and 2) compete in a constituency that can't be gerrymandered. I'd say Governorships are likely the most competitive races in most states for this reason.

Ultimately, the polarization of the Democrats and Republicans is a relatively recent phenomenon, and so it is possible for Democrats to compete in red states and Republicans in blue states, especially for the Governorship. We'll note, for example, how Democrats from red states were quick to denounce Tom Perez when he made a poor choice of words that seemed to indicate pro-life people weren't welcome in the Democratic Party.

[SSF1991]

4 hours ago, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

So while Virginia has become safely blue at the Presidential level, it can still end up in the GOP's hands in state races.

Actually, GOP governors are not common in my state. In the last 100 years, only 6 elected governors were Republican.  Nevertheless, a GOP governor wasn't that long ago.

His name is Bob McDonnell. He had a 55% approval and 32% disapproval rating at the end of his term. His policies were crap, for the most part. But his approval ratings were what they were for two reasons. One, he didn't really do that much. His worst offense was "Confederate History Month", but he didn't do anything damaging. And there was very little policies of his that he actually tried to enact. Which leads me to reason number two. He was more open to compromise than the GOP Congress is, and he'd apologize for any mistakes (i.e. Confederate History Month) and correct them. McDonnell's scandal post-governorship was nasty, though, and it even sent him to jail for a while. The GOP contender for governor is Ed Gillespie. He's a former RNC chairman and a Counselor to the President during the George W. Bush administration. Most of his policies are okay, but he's against Obamacare, against abortion, and, well, this. His opponent, to me, is clearly the better choice. It's worth noting that McDonnell endorsed him. Fortunately, polls are looking good for Ralph Northam, the Democratic candidate. There's definitely a pattern with them that seems to favor him more, and some more recent polls have him leading by 10+%. But we'll see.

As for the races taking place in the Virginia General Assembly, basically our form of Congress. It's controlled by the GOP at the moment, with one side of the General Assembly seeing elections this year. Like the DC Congress, the Virginia House has a handful majority, and the majority in our Virginia Senate is small. Like...really small. 2 seats small. The Virginia Senate won't be seeing elections until 2019, so they will keep this very small majority for now, unless they see a similar situation that happened with Virginia Senate Democrats recently and a couple of them resign. However, anti-Trump feeling is strong here. The Virginia House has a lot more Democrat candidates than Republicans, and there are more Democrats with uncontested seats than the GOP. In fact, 49 GOP incumbents are being challenged by 77 Democrats! It isn't helping them that no districts held by a Democratic Virginia House rep went to Trump, but 17 districts held by a GOP one went to Hillary. It's...not looking very promising for the GOP in the Virginia House right now, but as I said previously...we'll see.

The Lt. Governor and Attorney General races, I'm not sure. I don't see any red flags at the moment, but yeah. Those elections exist too.

I'm worried, as I usually am with every election, but the blue-leaning trend that my state has seen in the last 10 years seems to be more than just a Presidential thing. And I'm somewhat more confident at that than I was with the Presidential election last year. Time will tell.

[Tani Coyote]

45 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

Actually, GOP governors are not common in my state. In the last 100 years, only 6 elected governors were Republican.  Nevertheless, a GOP governor wasn't that long ago.

It's worth remembering the word Democrat has drastically changed meaning over that period. A lot of those Republicans are from 1970 onward. That is, the post-Southern Strategy era that made the South switch Democrat to Republican, that has had varying levels of success depending on level.

Virginia has an odd status of being able to remain swingy (at the state level at least; from 1952 until 2008, it was backing Republicans in every Presidential election except one) over the past 50 years rather than become a solid GOP stronghold, now trending blue (in the modern Democrat sense).

Quote

I'm worried, as I usually am with every election, but the blue-leaning trend that my state has seen in the last 10 years seems to be more than just a Presidential thing. And I'm somewhat more confident at that than I was with the Presidential election last year. Time will tell.

If I recall correctly, Virginia's going Democrat is a combination of a growing racial minority as well as its proximity to D.C., which naturally gives it more of a Democratic edge. While most Southern states have reliably converted towards the GOP in the aftermath of the Southern strategy, these two attributes have allowed it to better weather the changes in the Democratic Party from being segregationists to social democrats (in the American sense).

Looking over the history of the Virginia House, it looks like what happened is the Democrats bled seats gradually over 2 decades before finally losing control in 2000 (the Southern strategy shifted the South Republican at the Presidential level, but many Democratic incumbents managed to hold on due to incumbency advantage, with Democrats gradually losing power at the state level as the years went on), though Democrats were able to gradually begin restoring their share of seats during Bush's term due to midterms, before seeing a loss of seats under Obama and a restoration of seats in the 2016 election. Enough has changed in Virginia political preferences to give Democrats good odds of retaking the House for the first time since 2000, I think, now that there's a Republican President to bolster opposition turnout and an overall more liberal electorate.

Ultimately, though, the midterm effect means there's extra wind in any Virginia Democrat's sail for the next 4 years. Provided people don't become complacent with an "inevitable" victory and stay home, the House is likely to flip while the Governorship stays Democrat.

The real obstacle in all these races is Republican gerrymandering. The GOP's taking of so many state Houses and Governorships in 2010 was devastating, as it gave them the ability to gerrymander with computers for the first time. The seats drawn up after 2010 are built to stay Republican in the worst case scenario (high Democratic, low Republican turnout), so it is the Governorships that will be play the most and be the key to the Democrats undoing the GOP's advantage over the 2020s.

https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2017/06/19/justices-to-hear-major-challenge-to-partisan-gerrymandering/

Of course, the Supreme Court announced this week it will hear a case to determine whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional...

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/senate-health-care-bill/index.html

So we have our Senate healthcare bill. Currently, it lacks the votes to pass. 2 moderates and 4 conservatives thus far are withholding support.

Provisions are basically the same. Pre-existing conditions protection is still there, but states are allowed to opt out of providing essential health coverage, meaning people with pre-existing conditions may not have the same level of care. The Medicaid expansion remains funded until 2021, at which point it will be rapidly cut by changing how much money the government spends on healthcare each year by indexing funds to inflation rather than medical inflation. Subsidies will be cut so less middle class people qualify, but more lower income people will be able to get subsidies in states that didn't expand Medicaid. Planned Parenthood will be defunded for one year. Finally, the bill is outright snubbing Trump by providing for cost-sharing subsidies through 2019, in opposition to Trump's attempt to stop paying subsidies, which has forced insurers to stop providing coverage in 2018.

It should be noted they are cutting back insurance subsidies in 2020... yes. They're going to cause premiums to go up in a Presidential election year. They are signalling for help and saying they are as eager to see Trump out the door as the rest of us.

The bill still has plenty wrong with it, but it's better than the House bill, as expected. The fact the Senate GOP are openly rejecting the more insane elements pushed for by the House and Trump is refreshing.

[Burnt Ash]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/divided-states-of-america/

 

I saw this Frontline documentary this week. I thought it weaved a nice story describing the development of division and partisanship in the past decade or so from the financial crisis, through Obama's campaigns and terms, and to the beginning of the Trump presidency. Some of the topics highlighted are the financial crisis and bailouts, healthcare, Obama's relationship with Congress, gun violence and control, and race relations. It also delves into the divisions within the Republican party, tracing the divide between establishment Republicans and eventual Tea Party/House Freedom Caucus members all the way back to John McCain choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate all the way back in 2008. They interview a ton of people such as Joe Biden, Timothy Geithner, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Orrin Hatch, etc; they definitely use a ton of different voices to craft their story.

 

If you have four hours to kill, I'd definitely recommend watching this; it was definitely a bit of an eye opener for me. 

[Volphied]

On 23. 6. 2017 at 2:09 PM, Lord Liquir (Ogilvie) said:

The real obstacle in all these races is Republican gerrymandering. The GOP's taking of so many state Houses and Governorships in 2010 was devastating, as it gave them the ability to gerrymander with computers for the first time. The seats drawn up after 2010 are built to stay Republican in the worst case scenario (high Democratic, low Republican turnout), so it is the Governorships that will be play the most and be the key to the Democrats undoing the GOP's advantage over the 2020s.

https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2017/06/19/justices-to-hear-major-challenge-to-partisan-gerrymandering/

Of course, the Supreme Court announced this week it will hear a case to determine whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional...

Lately there have been terrible rumours going around about Justice Kennedy planing to retire. He is known to be somewhat against gerrymandering, which of course means that if he really does retire, the GOP will replace him with another ultra-conservative of the Gorsuch/Scalia variety.

If that happens, gerrymandering will remain a fact of America for many more decades.

[Patticus]

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of partisan gerrymandering, it'll be up to the states themselves to eliminate the practice. So, some of America's Democrat-dominated states might get rid of it, but most likely not all of them will - you just know the swing states won't - and it'll probably become further entrenched, with new laws protecting it, all across the Republican-dominated states.

The next Democratic administration is going to have a packed agenda, that's for sure. So many wrongs to right.

[Volphied]

2 hours ago, Patticus said:

The next Democratic administration is going to have a packed agenda, that's for sure. So many wrongs to right.

Fixing a packed SCOTUS will be extremely hard, you can't just fire Trump's picks. They're there for life, which means that future Democratic administrations will be instead busy trying to ensure that the now strongly conservative SCOTUS won't keep erasing anything even vaguely liberal.

This happened once before. FDR had to fight with a horribly conservative SCOTUS that was aggressively undoing his New Deal. Ultimately, FDR won this battle only because he served for more than twelve years; long enough to appoint eight of the nine Justices.

[Tani Coyote]

It's worth noting not all is lost even if Trump gets to pack the hundred plus (if I'm remembering right) court vacancies that McConnell and co. left unfilled under Obama.

Senators like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are regularly the first to stand up in defense of abortion rights, Planned Parenthood, etc. and break with their party all the time on the issue. Assuming they can get one more swing vote, they'd be able to keep out the worst Trump has to offer. A justice who isn't foaming at the mouth to overturn Roe v. Wade probably isn't foaming at the mouth to rollback gay marriage either.

This is the real silver lining to 2018. The Democrats don't need to retake the Senate. They just need a net gain of one seat so Pence can be regularly denied a vote. Nevada is likely to be an easy pickup, so all they really need to do is drive turnout to keep their seats in states that Trump carried. If they get that one seat, they can combine their voting power with moderates like Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins to rein Trump in.

If the Democrats pull off a true upset, taking Nevada, Arizona and possibly one more state like Nebraska (which had a Democratic Senator until recently), the Trump years are going to look drastically better for America.

Either way, it will be nice to see a Republican talking point about "balance" go out the window once they have an opportunity to upset that balance. Sooner or later I imagine all their talking points will lose legitimacy.

Maybe. Probably not.

[Volphied]

BREAKING:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-block-partially-lifted

Quote

The US supreme court handed a partial victory to the Trump administration on Monday as it lifted significant elements of lower court orders blocking the president’s controversial travel ban, which targets visa applicants from six Muslim-majority countries.

The nation’s highest court agreed to hear arguments on the legality of Trump’s controversial immigration order – which also temporarily suspends the US refugee resettlement program – in autumn this year, paving the way for parts of the order to go into effect over the summer.

Much of Trump’s executive order, a revised version of a first travel ban that was rolled out chaotically in January, had been stayed by federal courts in Maryland and Hawaii, meaning the ban had never taken effect. These rulings were later upheld by federal appeals courts.

More to follow …

Oh boy. I can already see it.

"In a landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling..."

 

EDIT: Thomas, Alito & Gorsuch wanted to reinstate the entire ban, not just most of it, before the three month SCOTUS recess begins.

[Tani Coyote]

Trump's base is celebrating this, but the Devil is in the details. The fact the Supreme Court is only letting some of it slip through - namely, a ban on travelers with no connection to the USA, i.e. refugees but not people with green cards or visas - means he's not likely to get the huge victory he wants.

He might end up with broad power to refuse refugees... which, holy moly, that's hardly radical. We have the wet feet, dry feet policy for Cuban refugees. As bad as it sounds, he's ultimately being dealt a defeat in all this. Plus Congress can always choose to overrule him. The beauty of executive orders is a lot of them only have teeth provided Congress doesn't decide to take an interest in whatever issue it's about.

Hopefully opponents of the measure will indicate home grown terrorism as evidence that this action really isn't providing any security benefits. It might stop a radical refugee here or there, but most of the terrorism from the affected states is directed places besides the USA, and Islamist terrorists increasingly focus on home grown radicals as opposed to trying to ship people in.

[Volphied]

50 minutes ago, Lord Liquiir (Ogilvie) said:

Trump's base is celebrating this, but the Devil is in the details. The fact the Supreme Court is only letting some of it slip through - namely, a ban on travelers with no connection to the USA, i.e. refugees but not people with green cards or visas - means he's not likely to get the huge victory he wants.

He might end up with broad power to refuse refugees... which, holy moly, that's hardly radical. We have the wet feet, dry feet policy for Cuban refugees.

The big issue people have with Trump's ban from the start is how it bans people on the basis of their religion. Which is something completely different from the Cuban policy. And yes, it's a religious ban, Trump said so on twitter and lower courts used those tweets to block his ban.

It was already ridiculous to see how some Trump officials tried to imply that Trump's Muslim ban is somehow identical to policies enacted by Carter or Obama, so can we please not do the same thing?

[Tani Coyote]

Just now, Volphied said:

The big issue people have with Trump's ban from the start is how it bans people on the basis of their religion. Which is something completely different from the Cuban policy. And yes, it's a religious ban, Trump said so on twitter and lower courts used those tweets to block his ban.

It was already ridiculous to see how some Trump officials tried to imply that Trump's Muslim ban is something identical to policies enacted by Carter or Obama, so can we please not do the same thing?

I'm not doing the same thing. Just pointing out refugees' ability to come here being limited is nothing new. Actually that's not just America, it's just about anywhere. The Court's decision is still protecting the people who have the right documentation, but not those who do not. Which also isn't anything new. We've had the undocumented migrant debate for decades. Without paperwork or authorization from the government, you have no legal right to be here.

I'm well aware of what the ban is. I'm one of the most active posters here. We just were never a land of milk and honey for refugees (barring the very early United States of course, and even then, we were very selective on who we let in). Yes, the religious motivation is very concerning. That's a given.

But refugees who actually make it here live in constant terror because their right to remain can be revoked at any time. They trade the threat of war destroying their lives for the threat of the police one day coming and telling them they have so much time to pack their things and leave for wherever.

Either way, we're assuming refugees would be the bulk of the people coming from all the affected countries. My money would be on they're not; the United States' refugee count is far lower than the total refugees produced by the affected countries. The original ban was egregious not just because of its religious motivation, but because of the scale. Anybody from Iraq could be barred from coming here, even if they have done so for decades or have plenty of family here or have zero evidence of radicalism, even if they had all the right papers. Under the Court decision, so long as you have paperwork, you are fine.

Yes, the ban is still terrible in its motives and doesn't really have any national security benefits to offset the huge amount of disapproval at home and abroad it generates. But the ban as currently upheld by the court is incredibly weak compared to what Trump's tried to force through twice.

[Volphied]

23 minutes ago, Lord Liquiir (Ogilvie) said:

Either way, we're assuming refugees would be the bulk of the people coming from all the affected countries. My money would be on they're not; the United States' refugee count is far lower than the total refugees produced by the affected countries. The original ban was egregious not just because of its religious motivation, but because of the scale. Anybody from Iraq could be barred from coming here, even if they have done so for decades or have plenty of family here or have zero evidence of radicalism, even if they had all the right papers. Under the Court decision, so long as you have paperwork, you are fine.

You mention refugees, but if I'm reading the decision correctly, this partial ban also affects tourists and visitors. Getting documentation is already a byzantine process and this ban just gives a convenient excuse to deny them.

Also, I don't trust the border controls not to fuck up. People who have a right to visit even with the partial ban in effect are still in danger of being targeted by overzealous and ignorant border agents and pressured to return.

[SSF1991]

The fact that anything from that travel ban got through at all is frustrating.

[Tani Coyote]

8 hours ago, Volphied said:

You mention refugees, but if I'm reading the decision correctly, this partial ban also affects tourists and visitors.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html

The Court's decision as worded seems strongly in favor of those with documents, but not refugees. It states that it sympathizes with refugees, but ultimately, they lack a real connection to the USA. The Court says that if you have no connection with the USA, the balance tilts in favor of national security.

The vast majority of plaintiffs do have a connection to the USA. They are receiving protection under the Court's decision. Students, foreign workers, etc.

Tourists and visitors are more muddy, but it looks like those with friends and family will be allowed in. In the end, the number of people who aren't refugees who will be affected is likely to be small, given it's only a temporary ban. It's a long ways from the USA to these countries, so refugees are likely to be in smaller numbers, and for visitors, international travel can get expensive, so I doubt there's too many of those either.

The religious ban element is brought up, but I recall a great deal of the rancor was the fact people who were here legally and who have been for decades were suddenly being targeted. There's not much that can be done to constrain how the government treats non-residents, but lawful residents enjoy protections that Trump was clearly violating.

Quote

Getting documentation is already a byzantine process and this ban just gives a convenient excuse to deny them.

A case of arbitrary denial has good odds of ending up in court. A US corporation has a vested interest in allowing, say, skilled migrant workers in, and will likely sue on their behalf.

Quote

Also, I don't trust the border controls not to fuck up. People who have a right to visit even with the partial ban in effect are still in danger of being targeted by overzealous and ignorant border agents and pressured to return.

Well yes, this is true. Many are dreading chaos and confusion in the wake of the parts being allowed through, because now a lot of judgment calls must be made as to who qualifies until Trump issues an order, memorandum, etc. clarifying what a "bona fide" relationship is. Of course, he is likely to make it as restrictive as possible.

Hopefully activists come out in full force, however, to let the affected know that provided they have some sort of ties to the USA, they can make a legal case for getting in.

34 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

The fact that anything from that travel ban got through at all is frustrating.

The law as written gives the government great power in how to handle refugees and non-residents. Short of Congress voting to alter the laws to curtail Trump's power, he will get free reign on this subject.

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/senate-health-care-bill-republican.html

CBO score for the Senate health bill get.

The verdict? A deficit reduction of over $300 billion over a decade, with 22 million more uninsured, 15 million of whom would be next year.

Trump, meanwhile, is being Trump, trying to discredit the CBO while saying that Obamacare will crash and burn in the long run and give Trump a victory later on.