[Aptorian]

The discussion I've seen on the subject suggests that it's part Trump wanting to pull back troops no matter what, he doesn't care about the Middle East and part that the Russian and Turkish involvement in Syria becomes more and more of a threat to the US position. Better to withdraw than risk some kind of incident.

[Tsundoku]

Wouldn't be the first or last time Trump finished and pulled out prematurely.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 20 December 2018 - 10:03 AM

[Tsundoku]

Double post!

So apparently there's this letter of intent that could spell the end for Trump?

https://www.news.com...1d5432550616eda

Shyeah, right. Heard that one before. Maybe it would have been right 20 or even 10 years ago. But not now, with those that support him abandoning any dignity or credibility they may have once had in their frantic grasping for power.

Times really have changed. Anything is permissible as long as you're on "our" team.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 20 December 2018 - 12:30 PM

[worry]

Thread is only 19 parts (including links to data) and worth reading in full if you're in the U.S.

[Malankazooie]

Wow, Secretary of Defense, James 'Mad Dog' Mattis is stepping down. Not sure if you guys are aware how big this is, but it's pretty huge. He's greatly respected across all branches of the U.S. military as well from most members of Congress.

[Vengeance]

Malankazooie, on 20 December 2018 - 10:43 PM, said:

Wow, Secretary of Defense, James 'Mad Dog' Mattis is stepping down. Not sure if you guys are aware how big this is, but it's pretty huge. He's greatly respected across all branches of the U.S. military as well from most members of Congress.

Well fuck face did just pull the troops out of Syria to please Putin. Fucking over the Kurds who have been our allies against isis.

[worry]

The letter doesn't come out and say it directly, and I'm not gonna pretend he's a 'good guy' in the broader context, but the mentions of what Mattis believes (e.g. about Russia and China, authoritarianism, etc.) coupled with the line a few bits down about how the prez deserves an SoD whose beliefs align with him, kinda tell you all you need to know about why this is happening.

And while I know it's more complicated than I'm qualified to say, re: what decisions are right and wrong about Syria here, it'll be wild to see not doing enough war becoming the one thing that forces Republicans (legislators and generals alike) to turn on DJT.

[Cause]

Now he is pulling out half the troops in afghanistan?

The president cant wage war without congress, dont they have the power to block him?

[Aptorian]

I'm not sure whether that's bad or good. It feels like Afghanistan is going no where.

I've not read any recent articles on Afghanistan's state but my impression is that everything is one step forward, one step backwards.

Our presence does more to radicalize and polarize than anything. Not to mention that the actual government seems to be just as bad as the Taliban.

[Cause]

You have a point.

However what's bad is that he is doing it on a whim. It also means 17 years of war, life and treasure have achieved nothing.

[Aptorian]

It's an unwinnable war. It's a modern Vietnam. Better to pull out but continue to provide intelligence, firesupport and training in what ever capacity is deemed necessary.

[Tiste Simeon]

Cause, on 21 December 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

You have a point.

However what's bad is that he is doing it on a whim. It also means 17 years of war, life and treasure have achieved nothing.

I mean, you could say that regardless.

[Gorefest]

So the last adult has left the White House. Oh dear.

[worry]

Worth noting that this adult's raison d'etre is blowing up brown people for fun and profit, and his disgust with Trump has everything to do with letting foreign powers dictate when and where to do it instead of letting America's domestic career warmongers decide those things.

[worry]

Good sign for a calm next few weeks:

[Zaloopa]

So this is kinda scary. Hopefully pulling troops out of Syria and Afghanistan aren't in preparation for privatized war.
https://www.military...-we-are-coming/

[Aptorian]

Trump is hard at work... Signing blank pieces of paper.

[Aptorian]

Trump is hard at work... Signing blank pieces of paper.

It frustrates me that he is a lying shit bag but at least they could put a little effort into it.

[amphibian]

I'm part of a list serv that deals with healthcare and other things that connect to Human Rights. An attorney wrote this summary of what's the context to the lawsuit against the ACA/Obamacare:


Hello,

By now, everyone has heard about the decision in Texas v. U.S., where Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas struck down the ACA’s individual mandate as unconstitutional and found that the rest of the Act was not severable and struck it down, too. Here’s our overview of the decision and what’s to come.

This suit was brought in 2018 by a group of 20 states, led by Texas, challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate. There are also a couple of individual defendants. Led by California, a group 16 states and DC intervened in the case, concerned that the Administration would not adequately defend against the suit.

The plaintiffs filed in the Fort Worth division of the Northern District, where Judge O’Connor is the only judge. They chose this forum because of O’Connor’s record and reputation – he was the judge who struck down regulatory protections for transgender students and held that the Indian Child Welfare Act was unconstitutional – and it clearly paid off.

On Friday night, Judge O’Connor issued partial summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs holding the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirely. He issued declaratory relief with an effective date of January 1, 2019, but not an injunction. So, at this point, there is no order for the US to take any immediate steps.

As you know, the ACA contains an “individual mandate” requiring most individuals to have health insurance or pay a penalty. This “everybody in the pool” requirement was designed to achieve numerous goals, such getting people into care sooner and ameliorating costs by spreading them over a larger group. In National Federal of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Court upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax. However, in 2017, the Republican Congress removed the financial penalty for people who do not have or get insurance.

In his opinion, Judge O’Connor holds that because the mandate is set at zero, it can’t function as a tax and is unconstitutional. He also holds that the individual plaintiffs have standing because, even though they can ignore the mandate with no penalty, they are still under a compulsion to obey the requirement, which is sufficient injury.

Once the mandate was stricken, the court next considered severability – the question of whether or not Congress would have wanted the rest of the statute to remain in effect without the mandate. While severability is a question of congressional intent and judicial interpretation thereof, the doctrine cautions that judges should preserve whenever possible. Despite this, Judge O’Connor held that the entire law must fall with the individual mandate.

This raises the question - didn’t Congress already decide this issue when it repealed the individual mandate but kept the rest of the ACA? Judge O’Connor reasons that there was no way to tell what Congress intended when it eliminated only the financial penalty because it did so through the reconciliation process where the only action it could take was to eliminate the financial penalty.

While there is uncertainty, we know a few things. The California AG has already said the case will be appealed. That will go to the 5th Circuit, which is one of the most conservative. It is likely that the case will ultimately go to the Supreme Court. In addition to the importance of this issue, there is another case lurking out there could potentially result in a Circuit split. In Maryland v. U.S., the state is challenging the Trump administration’s actions undermining the ACA and asking for a declaration that the law is constitutional. That case was stayed pending the outcome in Texas v. U.S. and there is a hearing on Wednesday December 19 at which that issue will almost certainly arise. In addition, come January, the new Congress with the newly-Democratic controlled House of Representatives will certainly have something to say about this.

Moreover, the federal government has announced that the ACA is still law and business continues as usual. On Friday, both CMS Administrator Verma and CMS.gov tweeted:

The recent federal court decision is still moving through the courts, and the exchanges are still open for business and we will continue with open enrollment. There is no impact to current coverage or coverage in a 2019 plan.

The uncertainty comes from the procedural posture of the case and the history of DOJ failing to defend the law. This is a grant of a declaratory judgment on only one count of a five count complaint. The judge has issued an order requiring the parties to meet and confer on December 21 and jointly submit a schedule for resolving the remaining claims in early January. Thus, the decision is not immediately appealable, so certification from the District Court or an order from the Court of Appeals is necessary. Moreover, while HHS is now giving reassuring signals, it is clear that the president strongly opposes the ACA and may ultimately decide to follow the decision.

So, obviously, we will be watching closely, particularly with regard to implications for the Medicaid expansion.


--


Sarah Somers (she/her/hers)
Managing Attorney
National Health Law Program
200 N. Greensboro Street, Ste D-13

Carrboro, NC 27510
D (919) 968-6308 x 102
F (919) 968-8855
somers@healthlaw.org
healthlaw.org
FacebookTwitterLinkedIn

Line

Advocate's Guide
Now Available
The Advocate’s Guide
to the Medicaid Program

[amphibian]

That analysis points to why the stacking of the judges by Trump and McConnell (more than any president in modern memory) really matters. This is an appointment by Bush popping up a decade down the line to do something awful.

What will Trump's appointees do ten, twenty, or thirty years from now with single decisions or the cumulative effects of many?