All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[JCAll]

As the Supreme Court denies the request to stop Texas' six week abortion ban, I just want to remind everyone who whined 'you can't blackmail me with the supreme court!' that they were wrong and really ought to reconsider their approach to politics.

They are not the only ones, of course. Failure to confront the rising authoritarianism on the right with a fierce enough approach to the threat it represents is a big problem, and minority conservative rule that does not actually represent the country is a huge and growing problem.

I wonder how long will it take for every Republican state to pick up an identical bill.

[numberthirty]

Please, continue to indulge your own self-righteousness and never admit fault.

It was so helpful, and is in no way what I meant by telling you that people like you, who have been wrong about nearly everything related to the consequences of the 2016 election, should reconsider their approach to politics. 30, we have access to years of posts you wrote deflecting from what a Trump presidency would mean. Posts you wrote about what they'd mean for the Supreme Court, about what they'd mean for women, about what they'd mean for LGBT rights. You were wrong then, you're wrong now, and all you can do is run crying back to blaming the woman for what was obvious to the rest of us. I wish I could say this wasn't predictable for you on those forum, but given you're exactly the kind of person who needs to reconsider the costs to others of their political strategy, not exactly surprising.

In the time since 2016, Democrats almost managed to lose a majority in the House when they should have been able to pick up seats.

That is with Trump attempting to take a flamethrower to every single Republican's chances in the midst of a pandemic.

That's after they managed to lose to Trump and lose Congress in one fell swoop.

Looking at that and winding up on that a single person on a comic book message board is where the focus ought to be?

Misses the forest for the trees.

[numberthirty]

Went back a bit... If someone did mention this one, I missed it.

(Get the feeling that someone probably brought up his initial hospitalization...)

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/g...df61a126c.html

Wife of Wisconsin lawmaker hospitalized with COVID-19 urges vaccination

His wife, Renee Jacque, said in an email to WBAY-TV on Monday that five of their eight family members have tested positive for COVID-19. They have six children, including an infant. She said that of the three fully vaccinated family members, one person contracted the virus with mild symptoms.

“While vaccination is a personal choice, I ask that those individuals who are eligible and able to receive the COVID-19 vaccine please consider placing their trust in the medical professionals who recommend it,” Renee Jacque wrote. “These professionals, and their peers, are those whom we have also placed our trust in to care for my husband.”

She did not say which family members have COVID-19 or release their conditions or an update on her husband’s status.

Neither the staff for Jacque’s office, nor family members, have confirmed if the senator has received the COVID-19 vaccine.

Sen. Jacque’s brother, Pierre Jacque, has also encouraged vaccinations.

“While I appreciate the prayers for my brother and I understand that that’s how they feel they’re helping, I would ask them to, you know, use some of the help that God has already given them to stay out of that same situation,” said Pierre Jacque.

[Tendrin]

I wonder how long will it take for every Republican state to pick up an identical bill.

It won't be long.

[numberthirty]

On top of the rest of it, someone actually might have been trying to extort Gaetz? This just keeps getting weirder.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...n-gaetz-508122

Man charged with $25M extortion scheme promising pardon for Rep. Matt Gaetz

[Kevinroc]

I thought the GOP was all about keeping government out of your life.
Except when it comes to abortions I guess.

The GOP are humongous hypocrites.

[JackDaw]

It won't be long.

It’s such a key issue on basic human rights (I’d assume people on both sides of the debate would agree that that) that it feels odd to leave it to individual states…I can not see any credible argument against view that it is fundamental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As more Republican states passed equivalent bills, the Supreme Court could not continue to refuse to act…they would eventually have to come down on one side of the debate or the other, and ensure all states accept a common national stance.

[Tendrin]

It’s such a key issue on basic human rights (I’d assume people on both sides of the debate would agree that that) that it feels odd to leave it to individual states…I can not see any credible argument against view that it is fundamental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As more Republican states passed equivalent bills, the Supreme Court could not continue to refuse to act…they would eventually have to come down on one side of the debate or the other, and ensure all states accept a common national stance.

No, the Supreme Court will continue to allow states to outlaw abortion in all but name for as long as possible, until Republican dominance through minority rule and suppression is ensured enough to be able to overturn it without blowback to their electoral prospects.

[JackDaw]

No, the Supreme Court will continue to allow states to outlaw abortion in all but name for as long as possible, until Republican dominance through minority rule and suppression is ensured enough to be able to overturn it without blowback to their electoral prospects.

US politics baffles me.

I thought Democrats controlled Presidency, Senate, and Congress…is it really possible for Republicans to stall them for long on such a fundamental issue, if it’s important to the Democrats?

[Gray Lensman]

US politics baffles me.

I thought Democrats controlled Presidency, Senate, and Congress…is it really possible for Republicans to stall them for long on such a fundamental issue, if it’s important to the Democrats?

The Democrats don't control things by enough - one defection in the Senate changes the outcome, and on top of that there is the ability of the minority party to stop most things unless there is a 60% threshold on top of things. And there are two Democrats who aren't willing to change that latter rule.

[Zauriel]

In the time since 2016, Democrats almost managed to lose a majority in the House when they should have been able to pick up seats.

.

In the last House election, the Democrats lost more House seats than after 2016 elections but managed to maintain a majority in the House of Representatives. The Democrats also barely managed to gain half the seats in the senate even though there are a couple of DINOs like Joe Manchin in the senate. Plus two of the senators aligned with the Democrats including Bernie Sanders are independents

The next Congress election will come next year, so President Biden needs to do a better job at managing affairs both at home and overseas after the Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco otherwise the Democrats will lose the majority in both the Senate and the House next year.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The GOP are humongous hypocrites.

Everyone knows they are. This has nothing to do with protecting the newborn, it never did, it's all about control of a woman's body and her right to choose. In some, if not most ways, the GQP is no better than the Taliban when it comes to strident, hardcore fundamentailism. Why Qpublicans aren't publicly called out on their hypocrisy is a mystery to me.

[Tendrin]

US politics baffles me.

I thought Democrats controlled Presidency, Senate, and Congress…is it really possible for Republicans to stall them for long on such a fundamental issue, if it’s important to the Democrats?

It's important. Unfortunately, the Republican minority is committed to full obstruction and two Democratic Senators, Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema, are uninterested in abolishing the filibuster and are serving largely as sin-eaters for others too timid to pull the necessary trigger that would allow the radical change necessary to save this country from becoming another illiberal democracy as we're heading towards. These things can wind up enduring quite well. Just ask a historian how long Jim Crow endured.

[CSTowle]

I used to work in Newark, and I was around when they tore down the apartment buildings and replaced them with lost cost individual homes. It made the area more family friendly, safer, and home ownership is much more preferable than renting out an apartment that often ends up having issues and slow moving responses from landlords to getting them fixed.

My argument is for adding lost cost homes with low cost subsidized mortgages that buyers can pay off quickly instead of apartment buildings.

Though it was considered a condo, we all saw what happened in Surfside Florida with the building collapse. And those were expensive units and they still couldn't afford the repairs. Imagine a building like it, but its an apartment, and no one is forking up the money to repair any damages, infestations, or other problems.

Apartment buildings may have a place in big cities, but I really think that there are better alternatives for smaller towns.

Yeah, no kidding owning a home is preferable to renting an apartment. I don't think anyone is arguing the opposite. The poor folk who can only afford (or can't even do that without assistance) apartments would surely love some of these subsidized mortgages you're talking about.

In the real world though, we can barely get Congress to subsidize their living in packed-together apartment buildings that yes are more likely to be run-down and in disrepair than single-family homes. Probably because there are enough people even among those who claim to be Democrats that are quick to label poor folk as not being "family friendly" or "safe".

Again, you can't just funnel all of the poor and minority folk you don't want in your neighborhood into the cities and just call it a day, while people with greater resources are free to keep the suburban and rural areas to themselves so they can feel "safe". Honestly, you shouldn't want to.

[Mister Mets]

US politics baffles me.

I thought Democrats controlled Presidency, Senate, and Congress…is it really possible for Republicans to stall them for long on such a fundamental issue, if it’s important to the Democrats?

In the United States, there is a lot of power for state governments to determine their own laws.

Before Roe VS Wade, abortion was a state matter. It was legal in California and New York.

To be fair, there is an argument by opponents of abortion that the Supreme Court should outlaw abortion nationwide under the rationale that the unborn have rights, and the law should protect the most vulnerable. There has also been legislation proposed that would have national implications, so there are a lot of legal arguments swinging around.

Legally, it is possible for Republicans to stall Democrats on this fundamentally important issue. Part of it is the Democratic control is very narrow. Republicans would likely filibuster any national legislation, which means Democrats would need ten Republicans to support it or to be willing to end the filibuster.

Previously there wasn't enough political will to expand the Supreme Court. If the court were to make a really expansive anti-abortion law, that could motivate the Democrats on the fence to undo the filibuster and to expand the Supreme Court.

The rationale for the Supreme Court's decision is that the way the Texas law was written no one has been affected yet, as no one has been sued for performing abortions.

There's an interview in the Atlantic with a legislative director of a pro-life group that supported passage of the law that gets into how this law is different.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...+-+Politics%29

Sometimes, the Supreme Court does the most when it does nothing. On Wednesday night, the justices denied an emergency petition by abortion providers in Texas seeking to block S.B. 8, a law banning pregnancy terminations after roughly six weeks’ gestation. A 5-4 majority of the justices argued that they had no power to stop the law from going into effect, since none of the citizens who are now empowered under the law to sue abortion clinics for providing the procedure have yet attempted to do so. Legal challenges likely lie ahead. But abortion opponents see this as a victory, however temporary. For now, at least, abortion clinics in Texas are largely suspending their work and abiding by the ban.

John Seago, the legislative director of Texas Right to Life, shepherded and supported the passage of this law. “This is a phenomenal victory and the most significant accomplishment for the Texas Pro-Life movement since Roe,” he told me. Just five years ago, his group and its allies faced a major legal defeat in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, when the Supreme Court overturned legislation restricting abortion procedures in Texas. Today, Seago and his allies feel much more optimistic that they can end legal abortion, and not just with S.B. 8. This fall, the justices are slated to consider Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and potentially reevaluate the constitutional right to abortion laid out in the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade.

If Seago and his allies get their way, abortion would be completely illegal in the United States. But would they be ready, if that were to become reality? I spoke with Seago yesterday afternoon. Our conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Green: I’m curious why your legal approach here was not a full-frontal attack on Roe, but rather to create a private right of action for citizens so they can sue abortion providers. What was the motivation behind that approach?

Seago: There are two main motivations. The first one is lawless district attorneys that the pro-life movement has dealt with for years. In October, district attorneys from around the country publicly signed a letter saying they will not enforce pro-life laws. They said that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, they are not going to use resources holding the abortion industry to account. That shows that the best way to get a pro-life policy into effect is not by imposing criminal penalties, but civil liability.

The second is that the pro-life movement is extremely frustrated with activist judges at the district level who are not doing their job to adjudicate conflicts between parties, but who in fact go out of their way to score ideological points—blocking pro-life laws because they think they violate the Constitution or pose undue burdens.

Green: How much of your strategy is about optics? Instead of passing legislation that would send doctors or women seeking abortions to jail, these questions get played out in civil court.

Seago: There’s a question of morality: Is it ethical to penalize women seeking abortions in Texas? We have categorically argued that women need to be treated differently than abortionists. Even with civil liability, we say that women cannot be the defendants. That’s not the goal.