All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

**CaptainEurope** · 03-04-2024, 01:27 PM

France enshrined the right to have an abortion in its constitution today, with a massive majority vote in parliament.

**zinderel** · 03-04-2024, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by CaptainEurope

France enshrined the right to have an abortion in its constitution today, with a massive majority vote in parliament.

As we’re told repeatedly by the right, ‘what works in another nation won’t work here’.

Of course, they leave out that it won’t work here because the right won’t let it…

Religious extremism is turning us into a third world nation on the verge of a dictator.

I HOPE against hope that I’m wrong and that we aren’t staring down the barrel of a dictatorship. I HOPE that enough people can see the warning signs and recognize their role in what happens next.

40+ years of paying attention to politics, though, tells me more people will tune in for the premiere of the newest season of the Bachelor than will vote against the further erosion of our rights, as the rest of the world moves forward.

**JackDaw** · 03-04-2024, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Gray Lensman

The court went way too far in the ruling though. The conservative justices basically declared that the insurrection clause was unconstitutional. Every other part of the 14th amendment is self supporting, but they ruled that Congress must enforce the insurrection clause. The clause that states Congress can grant relief with a supermajority, but only needs a bare majority to not require any relief at all.

It's amazing how fast this court can move when it wants to help Benedict Donald, isn't it?

It was a 9-0 ruling, and the ruling I think large majority of people were expecting. Realistically I think it was so fast because it was a clear cut correct decision rather than the judges wanting to help Trump.

**JackDaw** · 03-04-2024, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by zinderel

That’s why we all said about Trump beating Hillary in 2016…and look how that went.

There’s a fine line between ‘confident’ and ‘taking voters for granted’…

Hilary was desperately unlucky I think....for example, the timing of the sudden illness (that stopped her campaigning for a couple of days) near voting day almost certainly cost her dearly.

**kidfresh512** · 03-04-2024, 02:19 PM

The Supreme Court’s “Unanimous” Trump Ballot Ruling Is Actually a 5–4 Disaster

But that top-line holding is where the unanimity ended because five conservative justices just couldn’t help themselves: They went much further than the case required, announcing an entirely new rule that Congress alone, through “a particular kind of legislation,” may enforce the constitutional bar on insurrectionists holding office. As the three liberal justices pointed out, in a separate opinion that glows white-hot with indignation, the majority’s overreach “attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.” They are, of course, correct. After this decision, it is impossible to imagine a federal candidate, up to and including the president, ever being disqualified from assuming office because of their participation in an insurrection.

That, however, is where the agreement ends. Five justices—Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—went further: They declared that only Congress may enforce the insurrection clause against federal candidates. How, exactly? The majority says that Congress must “prescribe” specific procedures to “ascertain” when an individual is disqualified under the 14th Amendment. Such procedures, of course, do not exist today. And without them, the majority insists—in just a few paragraphs of sparse reasoning—the insurrection clause cannot be enforced against office seekers. It derives this conclusion from two primary sources: “Griffin’s Case,” an 1869 opinion written by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, acting as a circuit judge, and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which says, “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

The three liberal justices wrote a separate opinion, authored jointly, to explain why this reasoning fails. First, Griffin’s Case was, until Monday, widely discredited as the political handiwork of a chief justice plotting to run for the presidency as a great conciliator between North and South. It is “a nonprecedential, lower court opinion by a single Justice in his capacity as a circuit judge,” as the liberal justices wrote. Moreover, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, an author of the 14th Amendment, resisted the logic of Griffin’s Case, declaring that while congressional legislation might provide a “more efficient and speedy remedy” for disqualifying a candidate, it is the 14th Amendment itself that “prevents a person from holding office.”

Second, it is bizarre to claim that the insurrection clause requires enabling legislation by Congress when the remainder of the 14th Amendment—indeed, all three amendments ratified after the Civil War—is “self-executing” (meaning it does not require congressional action for enforcement). Everyone agrees that Congress need not pass a law to ensure that all persons have due process, equal protection, and freedom from enslavement. Why, the liberals wondered, did the majority create “a special rule” for the insurrection clause alone? They added that the clause does mention congressional action, but only to say that Congress may lift a disqualification by two-thirds vote: “It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation.”

**zinderel** · 03-04-2024, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by JackDaw

It was a 9-0 ruling, and the ruling I think large majority of people were expecting. Realistically I think it was so fast because it was a clear cut correct decision rather than the judges wanting to help Trump.

Unfortunately true. A JUST society would have put trump on trial a LOT sooner than this heel-dragging that’s going to allow him to pardon himself of all crimes in January. A just society would never have allowed it to get this far after so many historical examples of what happens when a fascist demagogue gets to this point. But we don’t live in a just society. We live in an oligarchy that favors the wealthy.

So, while this decision was anything but unexpected, it’s deeply disappointing we’ve even gotten to this point, as a nation.

“Should a traitorous wannabe dictator be allowed to run for president of the nation he openly, undeniably attempted to overthrow four years ago? Apparently, yes, because even though we all saw him do it, until he’s convicted, our hands are tied. And given how he’s stacked the courts, he’ll probably never be convicted!”

That’s basically where America is, right now…

**zinderel** · 03-04-2024, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by JackDaw

Hilary was desperately unlucky I think....for example, the timing of the sudden illness (that stopped her campaigning for a couple of days) near voting day almost certainly cost her dearly.

She also absolutely took for granted that she would win some of the states she ended up losing. Because in addition to NORMAL political calculus, she failed to realize JUST HOW DESPERATE the far right was to force their greed and religious extremism on the rest of us before McConnell dies.

We can’t take for granted that California will never go red. That’s how we lose.

**Username taken** · 03-04-2024, 02:54 PM

The Biden vs Trump polling is interesting to say the least. Trump is leading in most polls, and it looks like Biden is only scoring 51% of the Black vote and Trump actually leads among Hispanics. A disproportionate number of young voters are also leaning towards Trump.

I think this will change before election day, but two issues seem to be bad for Biden- 1. Illegal immigration 2. The War in Gaza.

I'm not sure if the Biden team knows how badly these issues are impacting these groups. There seems to be some misunderstanding that minority groups will be more sympathetic than white voters when it comes to illegal immigration which is a complete misread. Most black and hispanic voters are not immigrants and have just as big a problem with illegal immigration as white voters. Young voters have a big, big problem with how the conflict in Gaza has been approached by the US, but I don't really think they have much of a point here because Trump is not going to do better than Biden in this regard (anyone thinking otherwise is living in a fantasy).

I guess Biden has to do something serious about this before the elections because the real black mark on this admin is the mess that is illegal immigration. Whether we like it or not, perception is in many cases reality and it appears that Biden had no plan or even counternarrative regarding this issue.

**Panfoot** · 03-04-2024, 03:07 PM