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

[Mister Mets]

That isn't an answer to my question, it also ignores that I put "Malicious Intent" right behind heinous acts. Why jump to maliciousness in this case where there is no history or proof of maliciousness when you defend the people who made the Don't Say Gay bill and the ones trying to get the twisted boogeyman version of CRT that doesn't exist out of schools for believing they are doing what's right? I'm giving you a chance to actually answer here before I go with what seems obvious, to prove you aren't being deliberately obtuse or any other form of trolling.

"Malicious compliance" is distinct from "malicious intent" or "maliciousness."

I thought I answered the question, that it just seems to me from the description that this is people saying they're following their interpretation of a policy to the letter rather than making a sincere effort to implement the policy effectively.

It just seemed from the comments that they were trying to use edge cases to shut down the policy, rather than to improve it.

As for how I responded to other people, a big part of that is that I'm familiar with where they're coming from, thanks to interviews and commentary.

I suspect I'm familiar with the left-wing argument thanks to the people in this thread, but I'm also well-informed enough to be familiar with the DeSantis arguments.

[babyblob]

I have heard a lot of talk about the GOP getting rid of the Filibuster if they take control of all 3. And I see no reason to think they would not.

My question is if they get rid of it cant they put it back? Like get rid of it long enough to pass a bunch of BS crap then put it back before the midterms in caser they lose seats I can see this as something they would do.

[kidfresh512]

I have heard a lot of talk about the GOP getting rid of the Filibuster if they take control of all 3. And I see no reason to think they would not.

My question is if they get rid of it cant they put it back? Like get rid of it long enough to pass a bunch of BS crap then put it back before the midterms in caser they lose seats I can see this as something they would do.

You mean like a "carve out"? That's what Dems have been trying to get Manchin and Sinema to do for several pieces of legislation. Make it only in certain specific situations so like Equal rights bills, voter protection laws, codifying abortion etc carve out a filibuster change only on those and leave it for everything else.

[Kevinroc]

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/sta...22085993357320

Aaaaaand SCOTUS just granted the case that tees up the 2024 Coup https://scotusblog.com/case-files/ca...re-v-harper-2/

Issue: Whether a state's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives ... prescribed ... by the Legislature thereof," and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election.

We are watching the 2024 coup happening in real time.

[babyblob]

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/sta...22085993357320



We are watching the 2024 coup happening in real time.

We all knew a few weeks after th3 6th that something like that was going to happen again in 2024.

[Panfoot]

At the rate we are going 2020 may have been the last real election.

[CSTowle]

I worry about the proposed Constitutional Convention they've been yearning for going on decades now. If they get him back in office in '24 and get control of both houses I think there's a pretty good chance they'll try to enshrine minority white/christian/hetero rule despite demographics. If they do, that will be the end of the US as we know it. Again, not joking, at that point I'd welcome being absorbed into Canada.

[Panfoot]

I worry about the proposed Constitutional Convention they've been yearning for going on decades now. If they get him back in office in '24 and get control of both houses I think there's a pretty good chance they'll try to enshrine minority white/christian/hetero rule despite demographics. If they do, that will be the end of the US as we know it. Again, not joking, at that point I'd welcome being absorbed into Canada.

I don't think that's a hypothetical, that's exactly the plan, try and take congress/senate to stall any progress Dems can make, retake the white house in 2024 and establish permanent rule. If Trump taught is anything it's that much of the rules and ideals that we believed kept the government from corruption were actually non existent.

[Mister Mets]

I have heard a lot of talk about the GOP getting rid of the Filibuster if they take control of all 3. And I see no reason to think they would not.

My question is if they get rid of it cant they put it back? Like get rid of it long enough to pass a bunch of BS crap then put it back before the midterms in caser they lose seats I can see this as something they would do.

Legally, they can undo the filibuster and put it back. But it's not going to mean anything unless the public decides that it was somehow the right decision.

[Mister Mets]

I worry about the proposed Constitutional Convention they've been yearning for going on decades now. If they get him back in office in '24 and get control of both houses I think there's a pretty good chance they'll try to enshrine minority white/christian/hetero rule despite demographics. If they do, that will be the end of the US as we know it. Again, not joking, at that point I'd welcome being absorbed into Canada.

They would need two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention.

The law has been on the books, but we haven't had a constitutional convention since 1787, so there are a lot of unresolved legal questions.

Do the calls for a convention have to happen at the same time? Can a convention be limited to just one topic? What if Congress simply refuses to call a convention? Scholars are split on all those issues.

[Mister Mets]

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/sta...22085993357320



We are watching the 2024 coup happening in real time.

Isn't it important to grant this case in order to clarify what legal strategies are pointless?

[Dalak]

"Malicious compliance" is distinct from "malicious intent" or "maliciousness."

I thought I answered the question, that it just seems to me from the description that this is people saying they're following their interpretation of a policy to the letter rather than making a sincere effort to implement the policy effectively.

It just seemed from the comments that they were trying to use edge cases to shut down the policy, rather than to improve it.

As for how I responded to other people, a big part of that is that I'm familiar with where they're coming from, thanks to interviews and commentary.

I suspect I'm familiar with the left-wing argument thanks to the people in this thread, but I'm also well-informed enough to be familiar with the DeSantis arguments.

As none of this has been finalized or nailed down there is no 'letter' and considering as teachers have been targetted by complaint campaigns for doing things like wearing rainbow colors during Pride month or having a picture of their spouse that sparked conversation then it is a valid concern that this law will punish them for doing the same or similar.

Since you used the arguments to defend people it's not simply knowing them, and considering you only have your gut feeling to go off here when you've defended those I've mentioned when they get attacked when posters here go with their gut it seems too odd. Are you sure it's because of 'malicious compliance' (which has no difference to complying with malicious intent) or can you admit that it's at least partly because you disagree with them politically? I mean you have repeatedly defended Mitch McConnell as doing what he thought best but with no hesitation you claim these teachers are just being malicious - It doesn't pass the smell test.

[Tendrin]

I'm not the only one who thinks the GOP will nuke the filibuster for the express purpose of a nationwide ban on abortion should they retake the White House and both Houses of Congress. We've already heard the idea bandied about.

You're not and I think they'll get there, but it IS true that they strategically rely on it to let the Dems stop them from enacting changes that would hurt them politically but are popular with the base.

[CaptainEurope]

Hitting women and children? Sure, that's in character. Putting hands on muscular, young, and well-trained men with guns because he just had to be in the ****? Not a f##king chance. I get it, you guys want this to be the smoking gun that's finally going to nail him. It's not. The sooner you realize that the better for your mental health going forward. Take a beat, engage with reality, then work on supporting Democratic candidates for the upcoming election. Daydreaming about Trump in cuffs or exiled from running is a pleasant distraction at best, and a destructive one at worst.



Why not, worked for the Clintons with encouraging Trump to run and shake things up a little in the boring little ol' GOP.

Don Jr. was no longer a child when his father slapped him down. Stop defending Trump. He has always been violent and dangerous.

[babyblob]

Legally, they can undo the filibuster and put it back. But it's not going to mean anything unless the public decides that it was somehow the right decision.

We have seen the GOP will do whatever they want despite the will of the people. Over turning Roe V Wade, blocking real attempts at gun control, passing voter restriction bills.

The GOP does not care about the people they claim to represent.