Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The televised "hearings" are a joke, IMHO, from both sides.  They are trying to come up with a 20 second sound bite that will sway minds.  They have zero intentions of uncovering anything substantive otherwise.

DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa’s Republican governor has rejected two-thirds of the Democratic state attorney general’s requests to join multistate lawsuits, under an unusual compromise that has allowed her to repeatedly block the state’s involvement in challenges to Trump administration policies.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller agreed in May 2019 to seek Gov. Kim Reynolds’ approval before he would join multistate lawsuits. In turn, Reynolds vetoed a Republican-backed bill that would have prevented the state’s top lawyer from joining any multistate suit unless the governor or Legislature requested it.

Although the deal has allowed Reynolds to block 45 of 67 requests by Miller, the attorney general said he didn’t regret the bargain he made with the governor, which will expire when either of the officials leave office. Miller, 75, is the nation’s longest-serving state attorney general, having been elected 10 times.

“The most important thing is that the agreement is temporary and will not affect future attorneys general in Iowa,” Miller said in a statement. “It’s also important that I — and future AGs — retain the authority to comment on legislation and regulations before Congress and federal agencies.”


A spokesman for Reynolds declined to comment.

Attorneys general join multistate lawsuits for various reasons. Often it’s to recover damages for consumers in antitrust cases against companies when they attempt to quash competition, fix prices or limit availability of generic drugs.

But sometimes it’s more partisan, as has frequently been the case with Democratic attorneys general who have opposed President Donald Trump’s administration’s actions and with Republican state attorneys general when President Barack Obama was in office.

Records provided by Miller’s office show that at least nine of the 45 requests rejected by Reynolds challenged the Trump administration on issues of immigration and asylum policies.

Miller also was prevented from weighing in on at least eight cases involving abortion or birth control. Several other cases involved the relaxation of environmental regulations, at least four related to limits on guns or ammunition, and three pertained to sexual orientation or transgender rights.

In most of the cases, Miller asked to file documents often provided by parties not directly involved in a lawsuit, called amicus briefs. They are designed to advise the court of additional information and provide arguments for a particular position. Some cases were before the U.S. Supreme Court, although most were before a federal appeals court.

Miller said his colleagues across the country have been effective in bringing cases on health care, immigration, environmental protection, education, consumer protection and other issues.

“This agreement has not stopped the filing of any legal actions,” he said.

I have a low opinion of nearly all Federal elected office holders.  I might think well of some who we don't hear about of course.

How so on the Florida comment?

It was the Florida thing. I get there are some arguments for it, but they're pretty flimsy. 

The voters said "This is how we want the world to be." Politicians in power said, "We don't want to listen to the voters because we don't think it will hurt us." Now one can make arguments, but it was a somewhat naked power grab. And that's the way it works. 

And what's more, you have to pay the government for the right, after we spend a lot of time saying we are mad when we have to pay the government our money.

Badge compared it to licensing. This is less than apt for a couple reasons. The first is that licensing is often kind of a racket. I understand it to a degree when actual safety comes into play. And those court fees are basically paying a financial price so you can be put in jail. That seems like another small moment of government usury. The government gets to exercise power over you, and you get to pay for it. 

The framers of the Constitution wanted equal representation for both the people and the states. While the people directly elect their Representatives to the House, the States power laid with the Senate. Therefore, the State Legislatures would appoint Senators to the US Senate to represent that state in the Federal Government.

The 17th Amendment took that responsibility from the State Legislature and placed it with the people effectively removing the states voice in the Fed Government and giving the people yet another voice. Once that happened, that is when Senators figured out that if they would vote to give the people money from the treasury, they could help to secure their position in the Congress. Since the passage of the 17th, the states have ceded more and more authority to the Federal Government.

This change has also helped to solidify the two party system in that individual Senators are beholden to their political parties for campaign funds. If a Senator becomes rouge from the party, the party leaders can withhold party funding in his/her next political campaign.

I think that's an interesting angle, but I also think states were also more of separate entities at the founding of the country. State governments meant more because we were a less United States. 

I mean, it puts more power in the hands of career politicians. Maybe that's better? I dunno. 

It reminds me of an interesting political comparison I've often made. So part of the reason we have two parties is because we have all the smaller races that are first past the post. As a result, we have to make compromises to build coalitions. So we have people who like guns, who are very into a certain faith and who like more unfettered markets all banding together. The have folks who like police but also don't like a bigger government together. None of these things are inherently related, and some even contradict each other, but compromises are made because you build majorities. 

That contrasts to a place like Israel, where they have an unusual proportional parliament. So if a party gets 5 percent of the votes, they get 5 percent of the seats. It's good because it kills off the 2-party setup. But in the end, you need a coalition. So the socialists get some compromise to join the main line liberals, and the party that just wants pot can offer its votes to someone. The positions make the compromise and the parties hold power over nominees. I don't know if that's good or bad. I'm sure one rhetorically could make it seem somewhat bad (I feel like angst against established pols has been a huge part of recent discourse). 

The irony of taking away someone's license is that when you do that, you take away his/her ability to make money - and pay taxes.

I'm fine with felons not being allowed to vote, by the way.

If I was a felon, I couldn't practice/work/pay taxes. Why should I be allowed to vote?

You could. 

Badge, felon means you were convicted of a felony and it extends after you're free. It's not someone in jail. 

You could.

Badge, felon means you were convicted of a felony and it extends after you're free. It's not someone in jail.

There are some jobs you are not allowed to have if you are a convicted felon, even after your jail time.  And for good reason. 
Many firms in Finance and Banking won’t hire convicts.    That should make sense to anyone.