N.O. via West-Cal

“Why should this be important for us to know?”

I’m not even sure the poster’s assertions are true, but the reason to know is that a country should be aware of the general predispositions and world views of the immigrants it is admitting.

What the everliving!? :lol:

I've read the syllabus of the opinion (6-3 but "splintered" on grounds for decision) and skimmed the dissents (1 by Kav, joined in full by Thomas and Alito, and one by Thomas alone that was interesting but customarily quirky). Here is a link to the opinion:

SCOTUS Ruling

Here is what no one wants to hear, but it should be the best news you hear all day. This Court operated as a Court should and decided this case based on the law as they understood it. The simple fact is that this statute easily could have but does NOT mention tariffs, taxes, or duties. This is a good reason for believing that Congress had not delegated away its power to tax and levy duties on imports as expressly provided in the Constitution. For three of the justices, the major questions doctrine also supported the decision, although I strangely find myself agreeing with the liberal judges that you really didn't need to lean on the major questions to decide the case in this way.

Kavanaugh's dissent was great. I love the way he writes and thinks. I would describe it as deep thinking, expressed in plain English and with a healthy dose of common sense. According to Kav, it made no sense to say the president could not levy tariffs when the law would allow him to block trade completely. However, on this occasion, I think I favor the Chief's thinking. Kav viewed the powers granted as a continuum, but nothing in the law says that. As the Chief reasoned, taxing/tariffs are different in kind, not degrees from blocking or otherwise regulating trade.

Although unlikely to be reported or much agreed with in this forum, this case presents a great example of at least the six conservative justices (and I would say at least 7 with Kagan) doing precisely what they are supposed to: judging the case based on the law rather than as a means to support a politically favored policy. Kudos to the Court, including the dissenters.

Final thought: who on earth advised Trump to go issuing tariffs willy-nilly under a statute that did not mention tariffs when other statutes, which clearly delegate the right to set tariffs, could have been used for 90+% of what the administration wanted?

"Maybe 2032 or 2036. He’s more than likely Vance’s running mate in ‘28."

I think you're probably right unless something happens to cause Vance's stock to drop. Vance has morphed into a more combative style, taking on a version of the persona of the president. I could see unforced errors for Vance, but such things--see Trump's Access Hollywood video--don't matter like they used to. Rubio, while similarly flexible on policy, has been a more consistent personality on the national stage and has more seasoning than Vance. This will be fun to keep an eye on.

One thing to recall is that "the race" is only so good as a metaphor with what happens with AI or any emergent technology. You don't just get to sprint through a tape, "win the race," and then rest on your laurels. If that were so, the US would have unwavering, massive advantages in almost every area of tech that has emerged since the Second World War. Instead, we have seen other countries adopting tech from those who are ahead and closing the gap or even taking the lead themselves. China is an example of a country doing so now, while Japan did so, especially in manufacturing, in the 1980s.

So, my strong suspicion is that even if you are correct that China wins the AI race, their victory will be fluid, as the US and others will be constantly seeking to recover. All such victories are, by their nature, temporary.

While I would love it if every single state enacted something like the SAVE Act, I can understand a principled vote against as elections are entrusted to the states by our constitution.

collapse.

I’m a big Reagan fan, and most of what you posted was true, but the economy was nowhere near “a state of collapse”.

You know what? I agree with you! That was in the quote and if I had it to do over again, I would have put an ellipsis there.

"Something something Constitutional right something"

At least this would be an answer with a Constitutional basis, but too many Democrats have already tried to federalize elections to use this argument. So, instead they blather on about minorities somehow being less likely to have ID, which I find preposterous in 2026 America.

“ How do you pay more that you make? Isn't a % of earning?”

He won’t. Although the so-called jock tax is real, the clip cited in the OP is a little misleading. Assuming the numbers are correct, My strong suspicion is that they are saying Darnold will pay more in TOTAL California state taxes than he made only Super Bowl bonus pay. Darnold makes about 30 MM as I recall, and he will have several days allocated to CA not just for the Super Bowl but for other games in CA—remember that the Rams and 49ers are in the same division—and much of the tax he will owe is based on his allocated salary. It doesn’t take much time in CA when make that kind of money.

"Ditka-Saints level bad."

And what came after the Ditka Saints? First playoff win and then after some really hard times, our first Super Bowl title. Perspective, folks. Any franchise, no matter how bad, can turn it around with a few good moves. And the Pels need to make a good one for a change this offseason when they get a permanent head coach. I am not a JB hater, but we have to shake this thing up.