Jump to content

US Politics: Roe, Roe, Roe you’re gone? (Hope not)


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, it would immediately be "considered" by the courts.  If you think this SCOTUS is going to strike down such provisions that's another argument, but the way you're depicting this simply doesn't make sense and doesn't reflect reality.

Just look at SB8 in Texas. Is that reflecting reality as we previously understood it with regards to the federal judiciary? Nope.

And I'm arguing that states will have a heavy say in how provisions of the bill (which still isn't probably going to happen, if I had to bet) are going to be interrupted and enforced. You can cite the supremacy clause all you want, but that's not going to force state officials to follow it if they actively choose not to, and I would expect that in red states if the bill actually passes. 

Like seriously, there are states right now passing laws that make the vote meaningless in their state if they decide so. Reality as we understood it is already flying out the window.

Quote

I don't see how "victorious" GOP incumbents backing up Trump's lie is relevant.-

Because it's a prime example of why saying something is counter-intuitive doesn't actually matter when largely the entire Republican party is acting in a counter-intuitive way.

Quote

This is all a bunch of nonsense.  What, exactly, can they do to "kneecap" Biden other than shutdown the government - which NEVER works for them?  In terms of the GOP members that voted for infrastructure getting death threats, that only serves to demonstrate my point.  Those members are also the ones far more likely to win in competitive elections, so attacks from the right on them is beneficial to the Dems if you wanna look at it as a zero-sum game.

For starters, not allow anything to pass other than the bare minimum to keep the lights on. Force difficult votes for members in tough districts. Block appointments in the Senate. It will be brinksmanship for two years straight and that's not going to help Biden when he's already treading water.

Quote

Finally, this notion that you can't use five to ten years ago as informative is just dumb - especially considering McConnell was the leader at that time.  Honestly, the best outcome electorally for the GOP would be for them to retake the Senate and lose the House (which is probably the least likely outcome, tbc).  McConnell clearly is not going to do anything too stupid - or at least try to make sure the House GOP doesn't do anything too stupid - as evidenced by his behavior throughout the past 11 months.  You could say McCarthy is further right and more likely to disrupt than Boehner, because he is, but again him making dumb political decisions to appease his right flank/Trump only serves to benefit the Dems politically.

It's equally dumb to apply pre-Trump logic to what's going on today, much of which would be unthinkable a decade ago. Obama was working against obstructionist Republicans. Biden is working against open fascism. 

I agree McConnell wants to avoid handing over the Senate to the crazy train, but he can only control that but so much if Republicans retake the House, and if I had to gamble on it I'd say they'll do so comfortably. After that, all bets are off, and this reliance on norms holding seems to ignore what's happened over the last five years. I mean FFS, just look at how Republicans are treating 1/6. Does that seem rational viewed through the context of even 2014?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Just look at SB8 in Texas. Is that reflecting reality as we previously understood it with regards to the federal judiciary? Nope.

First, yes, this type of approach to such laws by the court as its currently composed was entirely anticipated - that's why Texas passed SB8 in the first place.  Second, again, this is an argument about how SCOTUS would deal with the case.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And I'm arguing that states will have a heavy say in how provisions of the bill (which still isn't probably going to happen, if I had to bet) are going to be interrupted and enforced. You can cite the supremacy clause all you want, but that's not going to force state officials to follow it if they actively choose not to, and I would expect that in red states if the bill actually passes. 

Again, this doesn't reflect reality.  If a state failed to comply with a federal standard it would immediately be taken to court.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because it's a prime example of why saying something is counter-intuitive doesn't actually matter when largely the entire Republican party is acting in a counter-intuitive way.

That still doesn't make it relevant.  The GOP acting in a counter-intuitive way will not enable them to "kneecap" Biden - other than to shutdown the government, which again, only benefits the Dems.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

For starters, not allow anything to pass other than the bare minimum to keep the lights on. Force difficult votes for members in tough districts. Block appointments in the Senate. It will be brinksmanship for two years straight and that's not going to help Biden when he's already treading water.

Other than blocking judicial nominees in the Senate, which I already mentioned, this depiction could perfectly describe the last year.  More importantly, it would obviously hurt Biden more politically if the Dems controlled both chambers than if the GOP shares responsibility attribution.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's equally dumb to apply pre-Trump logic to what's going on today, much of which would be unthinkable a decade ago.

Absolutely nothing has changed in what a GOP Congress can do legislatively under a Dem president.  And acting like the GOP was much different "pre-Trump" - especially the GOP House - is incredibly naive and/or ignorant of recent history.

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

After that, all bets are off, and this reliance on norms holding seems to ignore what's happened over the last five years.

Relying on the presidential veto is not relying on norms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  Confirmed that BBB is dead for 2021.  Biden is making an announcement.

2.  They don’t have the votes for BBB.  Manchin has the headlines, but it’s lots of others as well.  

3.  Senate staff is re-writing.  They are thinking hard about effective dates, this pushes a lot of stuff to 2022.  Bill is being skinnied.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

Well the name "Build Back Better" was fucking stupid to begin with so at least there's that.  

Straight up, I'm glad I won't have to hear it referenced positively by people I'm ideologically bound to support. I lost a little respect for the Biden administration every time one of those stupid infomercials played.

It's like they were trying to move in on the subliterate vote, inspired by Be Best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

2.  They don’t have the votes for BBB.  Manchin has the headlines, but it’s lots of others as well.

Dunno where you're getting that, it's very clearly Manchin.  There's actually bipartisan agreement on that:

Quote

"A 50/50 Senate is really problematic. I’ve used the word 'sucks.' It definitely enables one or two people to hold things up," said Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. "So, yes, I am frustrated."

“We missed an opportunity. But I'm not giving up,” added Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) “Apparently Manchin’s approach to this has changed a lot. I don't know where he is today or where he’ll be tomorrow.”

“I think Build Back Better is dead forever, and let me tell you why: because Joe Manchin has said he's not going to vote for a bill that will add to the deficit,” Graham said during an appearance on Fox News’s “Hannity.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also pointed to Manchin’s opposition to the core element of the bill as a major victory.

Manchin has been dicking them around for months and the child tax credit thing is clearly just his latest disingenuous tactic.  Durbin sounds very frustrated and by all reports Biden has reached his wit's end with Manchin as well.  Sinema may privately align with Manchin but she's been noticeably silent in her opposition/publicly supportive since she got the leadership to change the tax hikes in the bill back around Halloween.  She seems quite happy to let Manchin take all the credit/blame on this - perhaps the logroll was she'll take the heat on blocking rules changes for the voting rights bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

Straight up, I'm glad I won't have to hear it referenced positively by people I'm ideologically bound to support. I lost a little respect for the Biden administration every time one of those stupid infomercials played.

It's like they were trying to move in on the subliterate vote, inspired by Be Best.

I would have gone with something catchy and familiar if you're going with an existing acronym.  Better Business Bureau is boring.  I think any of these would have been better:

Man I Love Federal Spending

This Will Impress Nation's Kids

Bolder, Badder, Woker

Progress And Wealth Galore

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critical Needs Addressment would at least have been dignified. Vague enough to include all the silly stuff in there you want. And the name generates impressions of urgency, of importance to pass.

Build Back Better is something I am physically unable to say without sneering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

Man I Love Federal Spending

This Will Impress Nation's Kids

Bolder, Badder, Woker

Progress And Wealth Galore

I'll be honest, had to look up the last one.

3 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

Build Back Better is something I am physically unable to say without sneering. 

This is why I've almost always referred to it as the reconciliation bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

Dunno where you're getting that, it's very clearly Manchin.  There's actually bipartisan agreement on that:

Manchin has been dicking them around for months and the child tax credit thing is clearly just his latest disingenuous tactic.  Durbin sounds very frustrated and by all reports Biden has reached his wit's end with Manchin as well.  Sinema may privately align with Manchin but she's been noticeably silent in her opposition/publicly supportive since she got the leadership to change the tax hikes in the bill back around Halloween.  She seems quite happy to let Manchin take all the credit/blame on this - perhaps the logroll was she'll take the heat on blocking rules changes for the voting rights bill.

Senate, House, Joint Committee and OTP (Treasury).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Senate, House, Joint Committee and OTP (Treasury).

I'm not sure what this means, but the assertion there are "lots" of Dem votes against it clearly isn't accurate.  All of the members theoretically most likely to share Manchin's concerns (other than Sinema) - Tester, King, Shaheen, the Virginia Senators - have all publicly supported the bill at least since the price tag got cut down to $1.7 trillion.  It'd be very extraordinary, and politically difficult, for them to oppose it at this point if Schumer brought it to the floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not sure what this means, but the assertion there are "lots" of Dem votes against it clearly isn't accurate.  All of the members theoretically most likely to share Manchin's concerns (other than Sinema) - Tester, King, Shaheen, the Virginia Senators - have all publicly supported the bill at least since the price tag got cut down to $1.7 trillion.  It'd be very extraordinary, and politically difficult, for them to oppose it at this point if Schumer brought it to the floor.

To be clear, what I’m hearing from sources on the Hill and all from Treasury is that:

1.  Manchin’s number is 1.75 T.  He won’t move off that number.  The child credit in its current form, including that it goes to families making up to $150K extended for 10 years basically is $1.75T.

2.  Others are not willing to change the shape of the child tax credit enhancement, including by lowering the income threshold, decreasing the refund ability and advance payment, and other tweaks that would cause it to have a lower revenue estimate over the 10 years.  And, to be clear, the 10 year estimate is way more accurate because it would become a “permanent extender”.  In particular, both Senators, and perhaps more importantly, representatives (this has to go back to the House) from high tax states have signaled that they won’t move off the $150K.

3.  Others still won’t move off of their other spending priorities (e.g., climate change, but others still) and are not compromising.

4.  Schumer does not have the votes.  Not just Manchin’s vote (though perhaps Manchin’s defection does give others the cover they need to vote against).  That’s why it’s collapsing - the votes simply aren’t there.  

And what I’m hearing is that it is probably dead.  I’m truly just reporting here.  This is what I’m hearing.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

And what I’m hearing is that it is probably dead.  I’m truly just reporting here.  This is what I’m hearing.   

Thank you for these updates. Obviously, it's extremely difficult to figure out what exactly is going on with the deal making and even people with some access can be wrong, but it's really interesting to have a perspective that is not operating entirely from public data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

1.  Manchin’s number is 1.75 T.  He won’t move off that number.  The child credit in its current form, including that it goes to families making up to $150K extended for 10 years basically is $1.75T.

Sure, this aligns with the reporting.  It still doesn't change the fact that Manchin changing course on the child credit is a disingenuous tactic when, as Durbin said, there was widespread agreement on it previously.  And yes, Manchin's new tack on the child credit would meet fierce opposition and very likely blows up the bill - which is almost certainly why he did it.

Anyway, I'm just saying the notion Manchin is "giving cover" to other members opposed to it directly contradicts the consistent public position taking of such apparent members.  I think the assertion there are "lots of votes" against it is rather clearly wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprising.  Wasn't this the concern with passing the infrastructure bill without the BBB bill?  That progressives would lose any leverage they had over Manchin and Sinema.  Essentially, the only way anything gets passed is if Manchin is allowed to effectively write the bill.  Progressives really getting fucked on this.  Good faith negotiations after passing the infrastructure bill?  Hahahaha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, this aligns with the reporting.  It still doesn't change the fact that Manchin changing course on the child credit is a disingenuous tactic when, as Durbin said, there was widespread agreement on it previously.  And yes, Manchin's new tack on the child credit would meet fierce opposition and very likely blows up the bill - which is almost certainly why he did it.

Anyway, I'm just saying the notion Manchin is "giving cover" to other members opposed to it directly contradicts the consistent public position taking of such apparent members.  I think the assertion there are "lots of votes" against it is rather clearly wrong.

Again, merely reporting what I am hearing. I won’t bother you further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Not surprising.  Wasn't this the concern with passing the infrastructure bill without the BBB bill?

Certainly makes the Squad voting against the infrastructure bill look a lot..better.

2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Again, merely reporting what I am hearing. I won’t bother you further.

I understand, just disagree with the reporting.  You're definitely not bothering me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, there probably are some Dems holding out right now, albeit in protest, to some of Manchin's demands, but I suspect they'd quickly come around once something could actually pass. That said, my old boss just did a spot on MSNBC and she flat out said in couched language that this is all Manchin's fault, and she's not wrong. There's hardball negotiations and then there's just being a flat out asshole, and Manchin is clearly the latter. 

*mumbles "fuck Susan Collins winning" into the void*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...