Jump to content

US Politics: all the progressive's fault


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

A hyperpartisan, reactionary, and secretive (a la SCOTUS shadow docket) judiciary does not bode well for the future. 

am not concerned about the unpublished bit.  as the footnote on the issue says, it's interlocutory.

what's a bit more weird is the conflation of the correctly-stated sincerely held belief standard that the court must use with what the private sector may use in footnote 2.

am also not persuaded that one states an irreparable injury if it's literally something that can be cured with money.

i like this bit:

Quote

But before doing so, we must address the broader issue whether a preliminary injunction is ever available to plaintiffs suing private employers under Title VII. We hold that it is.

1.

Nothing in our precedent forecloses the general availability of a preliminary injunction to a plaintiff bringing a Title VII action against a private employer.

fuck you, private employers. not a revolution, but in fact a step forward, taken by a reagan judge, a bush judge, and a trump judge.  sometimes only nixon can go to china.

also, this is good for employees:

Quote

We disagree and hold that plaintiffs in this case need not have fully exhausted administrative remedies before seeking a preliminary injunction in federal court.

but the big deal, i think, is this:

Quote

As for plaintiffs’ assertion that they are harmed by being coerced into a choice between their religious convictions and continued employment, the district court concluded that plaintiffs could not assert such harm because while it may be cognizable in a First Amendment case brought against a government entity, it is not a cognizable harm in a Title VII case brought against a private entity. We disagree with the district court’s conclusion about the coercion harm.

In lawsuits alleging wrongful termination or adverse employment action, the plaintiff is ordinarily not irreparably harmed.

[...]

But the fact that such independent harms are rare does not mean they never exist. To the contrary, both Sampson and White explicitly recognize that Title VII plaintiffs can sometimes (even if rarely) establish irreparable harm separate and apart from their underlying claims. Id.; see also Sampson, 415 U.S. at 90 (noting that showing irreparable injury is possible, even if that is not so in the “ordinary” case).

Plaintiffs in this case alleged precisely the sort of exogenous and irreparable harm that cases like Sampson and White envisioned. Crucially, plaintiffs are not seeking an injunction merely to prevent an adverse employment action or any harm stemming from such action. Indeed, plaintiffs admit that Sampson and White would preclude injunctive relief if United simply fired them. Their allegation of irreparable harm based on coercion is antecedent to, independent from, and exogenous to any adverse employment action. Plaintiffs specifically allege that United wants to coerce them into getting a vaccine that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs and thus avoid any adverse employment action.

turn the facts upside down: atheist gets fired from chic fil-a--now there's two routes to recovery. i don't get to say this often: thank you very kindly, rightwing judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sologdin said:

turn the facts upside down: atheist gets fired from chic fil-a--now there's two routes to recovery. i don't get to say this often: thank you very kindly, rightwing judges.

That assumes a level playing field. That aspect will be applied for right wingers seeking protection against science; it will not be used against atheists seeking protection against religion. (easy thing to indicate is that it's clearly not the case for an atheist to have rigorously held beliefs or that their personal soul would be harmed by some action, but it is true for a god-fearing Christian).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SFDanny said:

A lament about the San Francisco recall. Lots of money went into the effort to recall three school board members, and almost no effort was waged to stop this abuse of recall provisions in my city. A political fire was fed because of parents anger against distance learning, and it was aimed against three people who should never been attacked. Now it is being touted nationwide as some kind of shift in San Francisco politics and a harbinger of doom for progressives. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our mayor has been a key factor in splitting the democratic coalition and stoking this anger. 

But the overreach of this autopsy of a tiny vote in a special election is amazing. 

edit: Here is a politico column also calling into questions some of the outrageous overreach

Interesting.  I agree it's certainly not a harbinger of doom at a national level, or even statewide.  Sounds like there were a lot of issues that are very specific to that school board.  I do, however, think it demonstrates once again that big money on the right is going to use education as a wedge issue this November and the Dems really need to get out in front of that.

In terms of the recall, while I certainly agree with you in principle, as the politico writeup points out the margins suggest this wasn't just a low turnout thing.  But if this could get San Francisco/California to rethink their recall rules I'm all for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That assumes a level playing field. That aspect will be applied for right wingers seeking protection against science; it will not be used against atheists seeking protection against religion. 

totally agreed--though we can recognize a progressive development in the law itself while knowing that rightwing judges will do everything they can to cut it back--even if only on a case-by-case level of cynically disbelieving any claimant other than a trump cultist fighting immunization.  as the great philosopher general turgidson says, however, it's not quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.  the dissent (the reagan judge) captures the novelty of the new rule, though. he interprets it all as deviant error.  am surprised by judge elrod.  i've had her in cases before; she's usually not surprising like this.  i can see the trump appointee being all in for crazy, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought this was interesting.  Debated where to post it, but I think this is more US politics than solely about Ukraine - Why Congress' sanctions push cooled even as Russia's aggression didn't:

Quote

After weeks of furious bipartisan talks on a Russia sanctions package — and repeated assertions that Congress had to deliver a strong message to Vladimir Putin as he nears an invasion of Ukraine — senators are settling for a symbolic rebuke. They’re explaining their lack of action by saying Biden already has all the power he needs to punish Moscow.

It’s a stark contrast with how they handled the former president, whose approach to Putin got handcuffed early by a harsh, bipartisan sanctions bill. Many of the same lawmakers who chose to go heavy-handed on Trump now are largely deferring to Biden’s promises to bring down the hammer on Putin — chiefly a sign of lawmakers’ increasing inability to come to an agreement, even in the face of war.

“They’ve basically announced to the world and to Putin and the Russians that they intend to impose sanctions,” the Senate Intelligence Committee’s top Republican, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, said of Biden’s administration in a brief interview this week. “He doesn’t need a bill to do the sanctions. Congress not passing a bill isn’t going to change our ability to respond to this.”

If Putin does invade, it will be interesting to see how long such bipartisan deference lasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

Thought this was interesting.  Debated where to post it, but I think this is more US politics than solely about Ukraine - Why Congress' sanctions push cooled even as Russia's aggression didn't:

If Putin does invade, it will be interesting to see how long such bipartisan deference lasts.

It still seems unlikely he will invade, Putin is just testing the waters. Congress being bipartisan on anything right now is more surreal considering the current divide. Unfortunately, it seems when America doesn't have a new enemy to fight and/or a major war to keep it's attention; the introspection begins and the dark past comes out causing internal conflict until our next war. America needs to break the wheel. At this point though, I'm just thankful for a somewhat functioning democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ser Salvo Summerhall said:

It still seems unlikely he will invade, Putin is just testing the waters. Congress being bipartisan on anything right now is more surreal considering the current divide. Unfortunately, it seems when America doesn't have a new enemy to fight and/or a major war to keep it's attention; the introspection begins and the dark past comes out causing internal conflict until our next war. America needs to break the wheel. At this point though, I'm just thankful for a somewhat functioning democracy.

Putin has increased the number of troops on the border of Ukraine to 150,000.  He’s pushed those troops to within 30 miles of the border.  This is an expensive and elaborate bluff if it’s a bluff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Putin has increased the number of troops on the border of Ukraine to 150,000.  He’s pushed those troops to within 30 miles of the border.  This is an expensive and elaborate bluff if it’s a bluff.

Putin doesn't strike me as someone who would have any qualms about the expense of what he's doing whether it's a bluff or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Putin has increased the number of troops on the border of Ukraine to 150,000.  He’s pushed those troops to within 30 miles of the border.  This is an expensive and elaborate bluff if it’s a bluff.

Putin has stated over and over that his main goal is to stop the expansion of NATO into Ukraine and eastern europe, he doesn't need to invade to change the pieces on the world chess board. We know he just wants to control Ukraine. Russian backed Ukrainian rebels can still take the country from within with close military support. Russia seems to be getting alot more proficient at fighting gray wars. The weak responses by NATO are definitely inviting more Russian escalation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ser Salvo Summerhall said:

Putin has stated over and over that his main goal is to stop the expansion of NATO into Ukraine and eastern europe, he doesn't need to invade to change the pieces on the world chess board. We know he just wants to control Ukraine. Russian backed Ukrainian rebels can still take the country from within with close military support. Russia seems to be getting alot more proficient at fighting gray wars. The weak responses by NATO are definitely inviting more Russian escalation.

The rebels are only in Donbas near Lukhansk and Donesk.  They are not spread throughout Ukraine.  They lack the ability, without direct Russian intervention to push beyond their portion of the Donbas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The rebels are only in Donbas near Lukhansk and Donesk.  They are not spread throughout Ukraine.  They lack the ability, without direct Russian intervention to push beyond their portion of the Donbas.

If recent events like Jan 6th and the convoy protest in Canada have shown us anything, it's that public opinion and protests can spark up sporadically anywhere with people questioning their governments. Russia has been bombarding Ukraine with Pro-Russian propaganda for a long time, I just think Putin is more likely to go the KGB route rather then risking all out war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ser Salvo Summerhall said:

Russia has been bombarding Ukraine with Pro-Russian propaganda for a long time, I just think Putin is more likely to go the KGB route rather then risking all out war.

The problem with this rationale is Russian aggression has only made Ukrainians more anti-Russia and pro-NATO.  If Putin is hoping to stoke an intra-Ukrainian uprising against the current regime, he's going about it in exactly the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

The problem with this rationale is Russian aggression has only made Ukrainians more anti-Russia and pro-NATO.  If Putin is hoping to stoke an intra-Ukrainian uprising against the current regime, he's going about it in exactly the wrong way.

That article was written in January when troops were at 100,000 on border and more countries were pledging support. US withdrew their troops and  NATO's weak threats have shown they are not willing to risk all out war for Ukraine. This leaves the Ukrainians to themselves. Eventually they will have to come to the table with Putin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Salvo Summerhall said:

That article was written in January when troops were at 100,000 on border and more countries were pledging support. US withdrew their troops and  NATO's weak threats have shown they are not willing to risk all out war for Ukraine. This leaves the Ukrainians to themselves. Eventually they will have to come to the table with Putin. 

Well, polling information from Ukraine is pretty hard to find, if you can find anything more recent please share.  But no, there's no reason to think Ukrainian sentiment has shifted since then - indeed there's every reason to think it's only been exacerbated.  And the position of the US/NATO/the west hasn't changed at all since that article was published, indeed the US has maintained pressure to the point they kinda look silly the past couple weeks continually insisting the invasion is gonna happen the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a demonstration yesterday here at the UN, of Ukraine immigrants and supporters, begging the US not to desert Ukraine, but support Ukraine -- and their families -- against Russia's aggression.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/nyc-rally-held-in-support-of-ukraine-as-biden-warns-of-russian-invasion/3560523/

Also the Democrats were meeting here for their state convention -- including frackin' Hillary, who is a producer on a film that is being made from that dreadful thriller she co -wrote with Canadian Louise Penny, featuring a fantasy Hillary Sec of State.  Argh.  And yet, and yet, and yet, Fox Noise can't stop howling about her.  Supposedly Hannity invoked her name and her fantasy crimes at least 200 times yesterday.  To which she responded in her speech at the Dem Con yesterday.  As if anybody paid any attention, except Fox Noise who crowed about it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Salvo Summerhall said:

If recent events like Jan 6th and the convoy protest in Canada have shown us anything, it's that public opinion and protests can spark up sporadically anywhere with people questioning their governments. Russia has been bombarding Ukraine with Pro-Russian propaganda for a long time, I just think Putin is more likely to go the KGB route rather then risking all out war.

Public opinion here in Canada is firmly against the protesters. These people are not questioning their government but seeing their tenuous grip on any real power slipping away as their Conservative party repeatedly shoots itself in the foot. We had an election in September and the position held by those clowns was repudiated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, polling information from Ukraine is pretty hard to find, if you can find anything more recent please share.  But no, there's no reason to think Ukrainian sentiment has shifted since then - indeed there's every reason to think it's only been exacerbated.  And the position of the US/NATO/the west hasn't changed at all since that article was published, indeed the US has maintained pressure to the point they kinda look silly the past couple weeks continually insisting the invasion is gonna happen the next day.

Ukraine is a very young nation, very susceptible to swaying. They'll cheer NATO until they realize the west won't risk getting bogged down in a land war in eastern europe. Ukraine has closer ties to Russia and Putin has shown he's willing to fight for it; eventually they have to reach some agreement with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Salvo Summerhall said:

They'll cheer NATO until they realize the west won't risk getting bogged down in a land war in eastern europe. Ukraine has closer ties to Russia and Putin has shown he's willing to fight for it; eventually they have to reach some agreement with him.

Well you're changing your position.  Is it that Russia threats will lead to popular sentiment within Ukraine turning against their own government, or that it will motivate the regime to acquiesce to some of Russia's demands?  Those are two very different things, and the former is very unlikely - especially to the extent that it would provoke a regime change.  And Biden/NATO/the west have been very clear since this started they're not going to risk WWIII by sending troops to Ukraine in the event of an invasion.

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...