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

[SquirrelMan]

Wow.

This has even Kari Lake panicking and fighting for looser abortion rights.

[Mister Mets]

if she resigns now, we might see another Merrick Garland situation. It's too risky, besides, there is are two big difference between Sonia Sotomayor and RBG just before she passed away, 1. age, 2. health.

Democrats currently have a Senate majority so it's not a Merrick Garland situation. Schumer would certainly allow the nominee go for a vote.

And imagine she gets pressured to resign, they get a 40-something replacement on the court who then dies of breast cancer a couple of years later.

It's possible but the arithmetic suggests one outcome is likelier.

Forcing her out isn’t an option, given the rules of the game, even if Biden was daft enough to take that line (pretty sure he isn’t).

But is it possible for him to effectively offer her another role? She obviously has bags of experience, and a keen social conscience, there might well be something dear to heart that she might love to tackle while she still has the energy and zest to do different things.

I don't think anyone is trying to literally force her out. They're trying to nudge her.

A Supreme Court seat is over of the most prestigious positions in government so I don't know if the administration can offer anything to make up for it. One rationale may be that they'll need representatives of the American legal system to be involved in investigations over Gaza and Ukraine, so that's potential pretext. Another point would be that it's better for her legacy if she leaves when she wants to rather than in pine box when Republicans have the white house and Senate.

[Tami]

Democrats currently have a Senate majority so it's not a Merrick Garland situation. Schumer would certainly allow the nominee go for a vote.

It's possible but the arithmetic suggests one outcome is likelier.

I don't think anyone is trying to literally force her out. They're trying to nudge her.

A Supreme Court seat is over of the most prestigious positions in government so I don't know if the administration can offer anything to make up for it. One rationale may be that they'll need representatives of the American legal system to be involved in investigations over Gaza and Ukraine, so that's potential pretext. Another point would be that it's better for her legacy if she leaves when she wants to rather than in pine box when Republicans have the white house and Senate.

The Democrats hold a narrow majority, so don't underestimate the Republicans desperate acts to stall the nomination of a new SC Justice in hopes that Trump wins and they can once again nominate another ultra conservative justice. Way too risky.

Better option is for Biden to win re-election, the Dems to hold the Senate, take back the House, and find some way to oust Clarence Thomas for one or more of his grifting issues.

[Robotman]

Wow.

This is horrible, but on the bright side I’m sure Arizona just inadvertently created a surge in the Democrats’ fundraising. Hopefully this gets more people to the polls in November and we can stop these archaic laws from being passed.

[Gray Lensman]

The Democrats hold a narrow majority, so don't underestimate the Republicans desperate acts to stall the nomination of a new SC Justice in hopes that Trump wins and they can once again nominate another ultra conservative justice. Way too risky.

Better option is for Biden to win re-election, the Dems to hold the Senate, take back the House, and find some way to oust Clarence Thomas for one or more of his grifting issues.

What are the chances that Sinema takes one final bribe to screw things over on her way out the door? And Manchin has already said he won't vote for any nominee of any kind that do want draw at least one Republican yes.

[Mister Mets]

The Democrats hold a narrow majority, so don't underestimate the Republicans desperate acts to stall the nomination of a new SC Justice in hopes that Trump wins and they can once again nominate another ultra conservative justice. Way too risky.

Better option is for Biden to win re-election, the Dems to hold the Senate, take back the House, and find some way to oust Clarence Thomas for one or more of his grifting issues.

The Democrats can't choose to win the Senate and the presidency in 2024. They obviously would like to do it, but the decision is not going to be made by them.

Perhaps there are things the party could do to increase its chances of winning, but that's a different discussion.

The political situation doesn't look great at the moment. Biden is not guaranteed to win reelection. The party is less likely to keep the Senate. The best pick-up opportunities are Florida and Texas. They can afford to lose one seat, and West Virginia is pretty much gone. They'll need to run the table in Ohio, Arizona, Nevada, Maryland (where a former Republican Governor is leading in the polls) and Montana.

Parties in the White House tend to do worse in midterms, so if Biden's President, it's very likely that he won't have the Senate after the 2026 midterms, if he didn't lose it before. If Trump's president, it'll likely help Democrats in swing states, but that won't leave them with a President who would pick someone they like to replace Sotomayor.

There are quite a few potential scenarios where it's some time before Democrats have both the White House and the Senate.
Biden wins reelection, but Democrats lose the Senate. A Republican President gets elected in 2028 and wins reelection (as is quite normal; Trump and Carter are the only Presidents in 120 years kicked out after their party was in the White House for one term.) In that case, the earliest window for a new nominee would be January 2037, when Sotomayor will be 82.
Trump wins. A shameless Republican nominee wins in 2028. Maybe Democrats get the White House and the Senate back in 2032.
Biden wins reelection, but Democrats don't get back the Senate. A Republican wins in 2028, and the party holds onto the White House for three terms. Democrats won't be in a position to pick a nominee until January 2041.

What are the chances that Sinema takes one final bribe to screw things over on her way out the door? And Manchin has already said he won't vote for any nominee of any kind that do want draw at least one Republican yes.

Manchin and Sinema have consistently voted for Biden's nominees.

Sotomayor could make a departure contingent on the Senate confirming a replacement.

This has even Kari Lake panicking and fighting for looser abortion rights.

This is especially shameless because Kari Lake defended the law two years ago. She's one of the people who considered the implications of Dobbs, and said it would be a good thing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/kari...ood-law-2024-4

[aja_christopher]

[zinderel]

ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and Fox News have reportedly drafted an open letter asking for the presumptive nominees to face each other on live TV.

IMHO, this MUST happen. And Trump will NEVER allow it to happen, because he knows he’ll get demolished again, like last time. But even if we know how it’ll go, it needs to happen to show whatever ‘undecideds’ are out there the stark difference between an old man who stutters, and an old man who destroyed his brain with amphetamines and cocaine and can’t form a complete sentence.

[Malvolio]

Wow.

So the law was written in 1864, but it's a 123 year old law? The math doesn't add up.

[Gray Lensman]

So the law was written in 1864, but it's a 123 year old law? The math doesn't add up.

The only thing I can think of is that there was an update in 1901.

[Tami]

The only thing I can think of is that there was an update in 1901.

Or someone in CNN failed basic math class.

[Tami]

A Hobby Lobby plot twist marks a win for abortion rights in Indiana

The U.S. Supreme Court 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby allowed religious, anti-abortion employers to refuse to cover contraception in their employee health insurance. But an extraordinary April 4 appellate court decision in Indiana turned the conservative Supreme Court’s landmark Hobby Lobby decision into a winning argument for abortion rights.

The unanimous ruling from the three-judge panel, which found that the state’s abortion ban burdens the religious beliefs of those whose faiths permit abortions, signals the possibility of a long overdue shift in the conservative bias of religious freedom jurisprudence. It also signals the emergence of a partial, albeit untested, argument for people needing an abortion in states that have banned it.

The Indiana case was brought in 2022 by five anonymous plaintiffs of faith and the group Jewish Hoosiers for Choice. They’re seeking a religious exemption from the abortion ban Indiana enacted following the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade that year. They said the ban violates their rights under the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which, like the federal law the owners of Hobby Lobby successfully relied on to avoid providing contraception coverage, protects religious objectors from laws that “substantially burden” their “sincerely held” religious beliefs.

The plaintiffs argued that their religious doctrine teaches that a fetus is part of a woman’s body, not an independent being with its own rights. The abortion ban, then, violates their religious freedom to decide whether to have an abortion. This argument, which undergirds similar religious freedom lawsuits across the country, including in Kentucky, Missouri and Florida, is a profound pushback against the Christian right’s attempts to assert their position, that life begins at conception and that a fetus is a person, as the only genuine religious belief.

[Kirby101]

I wouldn't count on Manchin or Simena to vote for a new Justice.

[Zelena]

Speaking of precedent setting court decisions:

European court rules human rights violated by climate inaction

The German constitutional court had already passed a similar judgment about 3 years ago, but there young people had sued. The court saw standing because they had to live with the long term results.

There are many other people who cannot vote and sue, all the ones who are not still there, the future generations…

[Gray Lensman]

Or someone in CNN failed basic math class.

Slate has a story on it with better math, or at least showing the work. Passed in 1864, but codified in 1901.