US Politics: Cancelling Democracy

[ThinkerX]

In wading through the comments sections of political articles and FB posts lately, I am coming across more and more far-right posters claiming that 'Leftists' and 'illegal aliens' have no rights or constitutional protections *at all* When pressed, they double down on this position. 

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

In wading through the comments sections of political articles and FB posts lately, I am coming across more and more far-right posters claiming that 'Leftists' and 'illegal aliens' have no rights or constitutional protections *at all* When pressed, they double down on this position. 

This ... this is a surprise? Why?  Since They have made this clear from the beginning.  Shyte, even the most legal of population from the git go in this country, even before it was a country, were considered to have no rights whatsoever.  And the only aliens allowed were slaves.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

This ... this is a surprise? Why?  Since They have made this clear from the beginning.  Shyte, even the most legal of population from the git go in this country, even before it was a country, were considered to have no rights whatsoever.  And the only aliens allowed were slaves.

Current context is something of a 'call to action.' I would not be surprised if the next year brings political violence - mostly from the right, but also from the left - on a scale far surpassing that of 1/6. As in double digit body counts for federal level politicians, riots much worse than those in Trump's reign, internment camps to hold all the arrestees, and...

[Wilbur]

Joe Biden comes through with another accomplishment of which I strongly approve.

Biden order aims to punish captors of Americans held abroad | AP News

[IheartIheartTesla]

And....Biden isnt declaring a national climate emergency ....at this time, but it is going to be never. I am not sure whether it is him or his cabal of advisors who are risk averse wafflemeisters, but take a stand once in a while FFS.

[Corvinus85]

34 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

And....Biden isnt declaring a national climate emergency ....at this time, but it is going to be never. I am not sure whether it is him or his cabal of advisors who are risk averse wafflemeisters, but take a stand once in a while FFS.

What would the declaration have accomplished if it did happen? Genuinely asking because I didn't hear any news segments expand on it the previous days and I didn't have time to look into it more.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Corvinus85

[Tywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

And....Biden isnt declaring a national climate emergency ....at this time, but it is going to be never. I am not sure whether it is him or his cabal of advisors who are risk averse wafflemeisters, but take a stand once in a while FFS.

It’s perplexing. Left, right or center, almost everyone views Biden as being incredibly weak and his response is always to signal that he’s incredibly weak.

[IheartIheartTesla]

47 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

What would the declaration have accomplished if it did happen? Genuinely asking because I didn't hear any news segments expand on it the previous days and I didn't have time to look into it more.

Mostly symbolic, but it will allow for broad executive authority to ramp up clean energy production, and mess around with oil drilling or transportation of fossil fuels (some of this may exacerbate oil prices though).

Regardless of that, the news came out that he was mulling it and then decided against announcing it this week, which just sounds weird.

This Bloomberg Law article has a bit more: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/white-house-mulls-emergency-declaration-to-fight-climate-change-1
 

Quote

 

By declaring a national emergency, Biden could tap more than 100 special powers normally intended to address hurricanes, terrorist attacks and other unforeseen events.

For instance, under the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the president could direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to construct renewable energy projects using federal money. He could also trigger a national security exemption in a 2015 law that lifted a decades-long ban on most crude exports, re-imposing licensing requirements and other restrictions to curtail overseas oil sales.

Even without declaring an emergency, Biden can use the federal government’s purchasing power to compel clean-energy acquisitions. He’s already invoked Cold War-era authorities under the Defense Production Act to propel US manufacturing of an array of critical energy technologies, including solar panels, fuel cells and heat pumps.

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Regardless of that, the news came out that he was mulling it and then decided against announcing it this week, which just sounds weird.

Similar happening with abortion. I wonder if they are physically restraining Biden back there. Like Trump with the nuke button, but with executive actions.

[Fez]

Schumer will be introducing in the Senate the gay marriage bill that the House passed yesterday. This is the bill to codify the right to gay marriage in case SCOTUS decides to overturn Obergefell like they did Roe. The bill got 47 GOP votes in the House, and it may actually be able to reach 60 votes in the Senate. Not clear yet. But with limited floor time left in the session and a bunch of federal judges to still confirm, plus whatever shred of reconciliation Manchin allows, I suspect Schumer would only bring the bill up like this if he thinks there's a real shot at it passing.

[IheartIheartTesla]

10 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Similar happening with abortion. I wonder if they are physically restraining Biden back there. Like Trump with the nuke button, but with executive actions.

To paraphrase the West Wing "Let Biden be Biden".

Or maybe that isnt such a great idea after all.

[Ormond]

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

Schumer will be introducing in the Senate the gay marriage bill that the House passed yesterday. This is the bill to codify the right to gay marriage in case SCOTUS decides to overturn Obergefell like they did Roe. The bill got 47 GOP votes in the House, and it may actually be able to reach 60 votes in the Senate. Not clear yet. But with limited floor time left in the session and a bunch of federal judges to still confirm, plus whatever shred of reconciliation Manchin allows, I suspect Schumer would only bring the bill up like this if he thinks there's a real shot at it passing.

Just looked at the list of the 47 Republicans who supported the bill. Most of them are from the sort of suburban or Northeastern districts I'd expect, but it includes one of the representatives from Idaho, the sole one from North Dakota, and all four from Utah. That Utah result does shock me a bit. 

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Schumer will be introducing in the Senate the gay marriage bill that the House passed yesterday. This is the bill to codify the right to gay marriage in case SCOTUS decides to overturn Obergefell like they did Roe. The bill got 47 GOP votes in the House, and it may actually be able to reach 60 votes in the Senate. Not clear yet. But with limited floor time left in the session and a bunch of federal judges to still confirm, plus whatever shred of reconciliation Manchin allows, I suspect Schumer would only bring the bill up like this if he thinks there's a real shot at it passing.

The House vote was definitely more Republicans than I expected.  I think this is gonna pass.  Any Republican reelected in 2020 isn't going to face voters until 2026, and it is really unlikely support for gay marriage is going to be a problem for them at that time.   And almost half of the Republican caucus was reelected in 2020.

If McConnell stays neutral on this, it will pass.  Obviously he could still torpedo it, but I don't see why that would help him.  That's just handing Democrats a stick to beat Republican senators with. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Maithanet

[Mlle. Zabzie]

34 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Just looked at the list of the 47 Republicans who supported the bill. Most of them are from the sort of suburban or Northeastern districts I'd expect, but it includes one of the representatives from Idaho, the sole one from North Dakota, and all four from Utah. That Utah result does shock me a bit. 

It doesn't wholly shock me.  I work a lot with a lot of (relatively devout) LDS members.  I have learned to check my assumptions at the door and listen because (i) they are intelligent thinking humans with minds and hearts of their own separate from the church and (ii) they sometimes come at issues with unique perspectives rooted in the LDS experience that take them out a different door than you'd expect based on church teachings.  And, very, very importantly, not all of Utah is LDS or even all that conservative.   

[Fez]

In further bipartisan news, Senate negotiators have announced two bills: one to reform the electoral count act and one to expand protections for election workers. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senators-announce-bipartisan-bills-stop-candidates-stealing-elections-rcna39124

I think the second should pass pretty easily, but we'll see if there's actually 10 GOP senators for the first one. And also just how much teeth the first bill really has. NBC's description says it does have some provisions to stop slates of fake electors from being sent, but I doubt it addresses every issue. And the biggest problem isn't even fake electors, it's real electors being sent by Republican-run states that decide to overturn the election results.

[Ormond]

37 minutes ago, Fez said:

In further bipartisan news, Senate negotiators have announced two bills: one to reform the electoral count act and one to expand protections for election workers. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senators-announce-bipartisan-bills-stop-candidates-stealing-elections-rcna39124

I think the second should pass pretty easily, but we'll see if there's actually 10 GOP senators for the first one. And also just how much teeth the first bill really has. NBC's description says it does have some provisions to stop slates of fake electors from being sent, but I doubt it addresses every issue. And the biggest problem isn't even fake electors, it's real electors being sent by Republican-run states that decide to overturn the election results.

Of course something I'd approve of--

though, to be pedantic, the problem is making sure the votes of the correct electors are sent. The electors themselves aren't sent to Washington. And this bill seems to give the governor the power to determine what the correct electoral votes are in his or her state, which given some of the Republican candidates now running for governor in some places is rather scary to me. 

[ThinkerX]

3 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Mostly symbolic, but it will allow for broad executive authority to ramp up clean energy production, and mess around with oil drilling or transportation of fossil fuels (some of this may exacerbate oil prices though).

Regardless of that, the news came out that he was mulling it and then decided against announcing it this week, which just sounds weird.

This Bloomberg Law article has a bit more: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/white-house-mulls-emergency-declaration-to-fight-climate-change-1
 

 

Because this would be where the Supreme Court steps in and tells Biden that he cannot tap into those powers at all, period.

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

It doesn't wholly shock me.  I work a lot with a lot of (relatively devout) LDS members.  I have learned to check my assumptions at the door and listen because (i) they are intelligent thinking humans with minds and hearts of their own separate from the church and (ii) they sometimes come at issues with unique perspectives rooted in the LDS experience that take them out a different door than you'd expect based on church teachings.  And, very, very importantly, not all of Utah is LDS or even all that conservative.   

I would not be shocked myself at any individual LDS member, including a U.S. Representative, deciding to vote in favor of this bill. I just am surprised that all four representatives from Utah would do that the same year. 

Having just looked them up on Wikipedia, all of Utah's present Reps are male. Three were born LDS and served their missionary duty when young. The fourth, Burgess Owens, is an African-American man who converted to Mormonism as an adult. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Ormond

[Fez]

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

And this bill seems to give the governor the power to determine what the correct electoral votes are in his or her state, which given some of the Republican candidates now running for governor in some places is rather scary to me. 

So my understanding is that it gives it to the Governor unless state law clearly specifies where the authority is (which is almost always the Governor or the State Sec. of State). But either way, it's not really a concern I think. Republican governors are almost always a bit less crazy than Republican legislators. And, while we'll see what happens in 2022; right now I think Virginia is the only state with the potential for a Republican governor to try overriding a Democratic (or actually split in this case) legislature. Whereas there are several states with Democratic governors but a Republican legislature.

[LongRider]

The heat and dry air have turned their brains into jerky.