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

[Kirby101]

Since the Constitution only applies to the actions of the government, it is very difficult to use it to enforce anything for private citizens as on private property, you're only protected from actions of the government but not from the actions of the property owner.

So you would let Plessy vs Ferguson stand and not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[Gray Lensman]

So you would let Plessy vs Ferguson stand and not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I bet the current Supreme Court might think of striking it down.

[Mister Mets]

So you would let Plessy vs Ferguson stand and not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Much of the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 come from the sections of the 13th and 15th amendments which explicitly provide Congress the ability to come up with new legislation to enforce the amendments.

Plessy V Ferguson was about the constitutionality of a law passed in Louisiana that required separate cars for white and African-American passengers. It did not apply to private citizens on private property.

I bet the current Supreme Court might think of striking it down.

To what end?

What people would be supportive of that decision?

[JackDaw]

Much of the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 come from the sections of the 13th and 15th amendments which explicitly provide Congress the ability to come up with new legislation to enforce the amendments.

Plessy V Ferguson was about the constitutionality of a law passed in Louisiana that required separate cars for white and African-American passengers. It did not apply to private citizens on private property.

To what end?

What people would be supportive of that decision?

As it’s widely regarded as a poor decision and one that effectively been over-turned by subsequent decisions, wouldn’t most people support striking it down?

[Gray Lensman]

As it’s widely regarded as a poor decision and one that effectively been over-turned by subsequent decisions, wouldn’t most people support striking it down?

I was thinking of other cases - some people on the right support the theory that Constitutional Ammendments can't justify things that weren't supported at the time. So in thier view Loving v Virginia should be overturned (granted, that is an extreme example but it is where the logic leads in the end).

[Mister Mets]

As it’s widely regarded as a poor decision and one that effectively been over-turned by subsequent decisions, wouldn’t most people support striking it down?

I thought he was suggesting that the current Supreme Court would vote against the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, and would also vote to restore Plessy V Ferguson if they had the chance.

I don't think there is much of a constituency for that decision, nor is there sufficient legal rationale, given the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments.

So yesterday Donald Trump basically said he would grant pardons to everyone involved in January 6th attack at Capitol. Basically saying he will allow our own citizens to wage attacks on Congress and the Capitol under his administration again and will pardon them essentially.

Sadly this is not the worst thing Trump has done since losing reelection.

I doubt there's anyone looking at his behavior since the election, and thinking "Wow, he handled that better than I expected. I misjudged him. I might vote for him if he runs again."

[JackDaw]

Sadly this is not the worst thing Trump has done since losing reelection.

I doubt there's anyone looking at his behavior since the election, and thinking "Wow, he handled that better than I expected. I misjudged him. I might vote for him if he runs again."

That’s a good point: The Donald can’t logically have gained any “new” voter support since losing the last election.

And…big assumption coming up…assuming the Donald is rational and has desires to contest the next Presidential election and win, then he must be operating on basis that keeping large majority of his existing support base is enough to win.

I suppose that might be true? (If Joe Biden stands again he’ll probably not get as many votes as last time. And other possible Democratic candidates might do worse than Joe.)

[Jack Dracula]

Nevermind.

[seismic-2]

Trump likely figures that even if he has lost some support, almost everyone who voted for him in 2020 would still do so again in 2024. The same cannot be said of Biden, whose popularity has declined significantly during his first year in office. All that Trump needs for a victory in 2024 is for most of his 2020 voters to show up at the polls and for enough of Biden's 2020 voters to stay at home, at least in those same States where he won only narrowly in 2020. Of course, if the Democratic candidate in 2024 is someone other than Joe Biden, then this logic becomes inapplicable.

[Mister Mets]

That’s a good point: The Donald can’t logically have gained any “new” voter support since losing the last election.

And…big assumption coming up…assuming the Donald is rational and has desires to contest the next Presidential election and win, then he must be operating on basis that keeping large majority of his existing support base is enough to win.

I suppose that might be true? (If Joe Biden stands again he’ll probably not get as many votes as last time. And other possible Democratic candidates might do worse than Joe.)

The only shot Trump has is that Democrats lose voters, which can mainly happen if Democrats go too far left and alienate marginal voters, or if left-wing voters have unrealistic expectations and this diminishes turnout.

2.5 is 36.231884057971% of 6.9

This was a bipartisan decision made by a Democratic Governor and a republican controlled state legislature. This is not an example of legislation made during the pandemic that people are trying to make permanent, although they obviously couldn't predict the high number of people who would take advantage of it, as they wouldn't know Covid would be a problem.

But this also doesn't fit your rhetoric about a stolen election. When election laws are determined to be wrong, it doesn't mean that we should retroactively see if we can determine a new winner. This will only affect elections going forward.

[Mister Mets]

There has been some criticism of Joe Biden's announcement that the next Supreme Court nominee will be an African-American woman, but one Senator says it wouldn't be affirmative action, and prefers an individual from his home state who Biden nominated for the court of appeals and has said is in the running for Breyers' seat.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) rejected the suggestion by some in his party that nominating a Black woman to the Supreme Court would be "affirmative action," while heaping praise on one of the likely frontrunners for the high court seat.

Why it matters: Graham's remarks are in stark contrast to those of Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and some of his other Republican colleagues.

Catch up quick: The Mississippi senator last week said a Black woman's nomination would be akin to "affirmative racial discrimination" and Nikki Haley, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, argued that race and gender should not be considered when choosing the nominee, "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan pointed out during Graham's appearance.

• Judge J. Michelle Childs, who sits on the U.S. district court in South Carolina, is considered a leading candidate to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer.

What he's saying: "Put me in the camp of making sure the court and other institutions look like America. You know, we make a real effort as Republicans to recruit women and people of color to make the party look more like America," said Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

• "Affirmative action is picking somebody not as well qualified for past wrongs. Michelle Childs is incredibly qualified. There's no affirmative action component if you pick her," he continued.
• "I can't think of a better person for President Biden to consider for the Supreme Court than Michelle Childs. She has wide support in our state, she's considered to be a fair minded, highly gifted jurist."
• "She's one of the most decent people I've ever met. It would be good for the court to have somebody who's not at Harvard or Yale. She's a graduate of the University of South Carolina...I cannot say anything bad about Michelle Childs. She's an awesome person."

I think the response to this vacancy and to the next nominee will be more civil than the response to any of Trump's nominees.

[Kirby101]

Trump's nominees? You mean the one they put in after holding up the rightful one for a year? Or the drunk they put in after forcing a retirement. Or the one the jammed through after saying they would never do one that.
But oh noes, people weren't civil!

[The Cool Thatguy]

Trump's nominees? You mean the one they put in after holding up the rightful one for a year? Or the drunk they put in after forcing a retirement. Or the one the jammed through after saying they would never do one that.
But oh noes, people weren't civil!

Because if there's one thing you can say about Trump, it's that he's civil

[babyblob]

There has been some criticism of Joe Biden's announcement that the next Supreme Court nominee will be an African-American woman, but one Senator says it wouldn't be affirmative action, and prefers an individual from his home state who Biden nominated for the court of appeals and has said is in the running for Breyers' seat.



I think the response to this vacancy and to the next nominee will be more civil than the response to any of Trump's nominees.

Till Graham who changes his mind more then his pants starts getting back lash for this and will change his tune and start bad mouthing her and saying his words were taken out of context etc...

Same guy who was upset about the 6th on the 6th then by the 8th was saying it was not as big a deal as the Dems were making it out to be.

[Kirby101]

Lindsey is a lying POS

https://youtube.com/watch?v=d2mvmeklx8I