Polybius
Polybius's JournalShould there just be one nationwide Democratic Primary?
If you think about it, primaries/caucuses are sorta like the Electoral College, the only difference being that they are spread across different days/months, with some as early as January and some as late as June. It's not really based on the total number of votes that a candidate gets, but how many delegates they have. Like the EC, if a candidate doesn't have the required amount, it gets decided by someone else.
Imagine if we had one nationwide super-primary, based entirely on who gets the most votes. We can do it early but not too early, let's say first Tuesday in April. That's still more than enough time to rally behind the candidate that is our nominee. Sure, it takes a lot of the fun out of primaries like adding up delegates, but it has many pluses as well. What do you think?
What if John Roberts refuses to go to the Senate trial?
Since the Constitution mandates that he be there, what if he says no and doesn't show up? Does he get arrested by the Sergeant At Arms, US Martials, or someone else? Does the trial not start until he arrives?
There is no mention of a backup, but who would that be anyway? There are only two ranks on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice and Associate Justice. Perhaps longest serving member?
Edit: I know he won't refuse, what I'm asking is what happens if a Chief Justice were to refuse.
Senate sends massive defense bill for Trump to sign, creating Space Force
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to pass a $738 billion defense policy bill that creates President Donald Trump’s “Space Force” and gives federal employees 12 weeks of paid parental leave, sending it to the White House, where Trump has promised to quickly sign it into law.
The Republican-controlled Senate voted 86 to 8 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. The Democratic-led House approved the bill by 377-48 last week.
Trump said on Twitter last week that he would sign the bill as soon as it passes, saying it included all his priorities.
The NDAA also does not bar the Republican president from using military funds to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-congress/senate-sends-massive-defense-bill-for-trump-to-sign-creating-space-force-idUSKBN1YL24C
I really hate that last part... ^^^
Please tell me that today's USA Today's polls aren't accurate
From the article on removing Trump from office:
In the wake of combative impeachment hearings, those surveyed oppose by 51%-45% a Senate vote to convict Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Though those results may be sobering – almost half of Americans support removing the president from office – they are a bit better for him than the survey's findings in October, when Americans split 47%-46%.
On Trump's approval ratings:
Trump's job approval rating in the new poll is 48% approve-50% disapprove, a tick better than in October, when it was 46%-52%.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/15/poll-impeachment-looms-narrow-majority-opposes-convicting-trump/2657549001/
Supreme Court Refuses to Revive City's Outdoor-Sleeping Ban
Source: Bloomberg Law
The U.S. Supreme Court let stand a ruling that said homeless people have a constitutional right to sleep on public property outdoors if no other shelter is available to them.
The justices without comment on Monday turned away an appeal by Boise, Idaho, which said the federal appeals court ruling would leave cities “powerless” to address residents’ health and safety concerns.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Boise would be violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishments by enforcing criminal penalties under its anti-camping ordinance when its three homeless shelters are full.
“The state may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless -- namely sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets,” the 9th Circuit said.
Read more: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-refuses-to-revive-citys-outdoor-sleeping-ban?campaign=9B4A0578-2013-11EA-8AE6-81B54F017A06&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=lawdesk
Representative Jeff Van Drew, Anti-Impeachment Democrat, Considering Switching Parties
Source: NY Times
WASHINGTON — Representative Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, a moderate Democrat who is among his party’s staunchest opponents of impeaching President Trump, is considering switching parties and could make an announcement as soon as next week, just as the House is casting its historic votes on articles of impeachment.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/us/politics/jeff-van-drew-democrat-republican.html
Can't link anymore, source is a paywall...
Three new polls out today
Biden is up by 12, 8, and 5 in the three polls. Bernie in second in each one. Bloomberg at 5, 5, and 6. Biggest news is that Buttigieg is way down in all of them.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Which of the four liberals declined to hear a challenge to Kentucky's anti-abortion law?
As most of you know, a little while ago the Supreme Court let stand the Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients, by declining to hear a challenge. Since it takes four votes to hear it, at least one liberal didn't want to take it up.
Which one (or ones) do you think didn't want to take up the case? What was their reasoning? The only thing that I can think of is that they feared that the Court would strike down Row if they took up this case. That's not a really good reason though, because we can't let these crazy laws stand without getting challenged.
