US politics: Rovenber is coming.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Perhapos, but I'm not sure how smart it is let Graham and Rubio, and Peach Tree Dishes and the Wonton killer speak for them? 

I can't tell if this is an accident or high art.

Anyways, fuck fetch, we need to make "perhapos" happen!!! 

[Wade1865]

UNIONS -- BACK IN STYLE

I'm not a supporter, I'm a capitalist and prefer my Starbucks tall chai tea lattes (whole milk, extra hot) as cheap as possible, and without sacrificing quality! Nevertheless, a Gallup poll recorded that US labor union support is at its highest approval since 1965, at 68%. It never reached beyond 75% back in the 1950s. A few interesting data points:

• 90% of Democrats; and 47% of Republicans, support unions.

• 86% of union members approve of unions (wut?).

• 48%, lowest approval, recorded in 2009.

• 9% of workers are (self-reported) in a union; 33.9% back in the 1960s.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I can't tell if this is an accident or high art.

Anyways, fuck fetch, we need to make "perhapos" happen!!! 

I wish I could say it was deliberate. Just fat fingers unfortunately.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Wade1865 said:

I'm not a supporter, I'm a capitalist and prefer my Starbucks tall chai tea lattes

I never tried those, been to star bucks a bunch of times. How do they taste?

[Wade1865]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I never tried those, been to star bucks a bunch of times. How do they taste?

Varysblackfyre321 -- I like it better than their coffees, but nothing spectacular.

Had my first chai in IRQ 07-09; since then, started drinking them in the US and EU — but with clean water, not germ-infested canal water. Starbucks did it better of course!

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I never tried those, been to star bucks a bunch of times. How do they taste?

Never been to star bucks.  Always preferred star does myself.  Like Snape's patronus.

[Jace, Extat]

Coffee is a crutch of the mind. All crutches are to be despised. 

At least that's what my comportment instructor always said when I asked to have some on early mornings, walking between the davenport and chifforobe with perfect posture. Then she'd whack the books off my head with her crutches and quaff more coffee while I gathered the weights and rebegan my steps... 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Coffee is a crutch of the mind. All crutches are to be despised. 

At least that's what my comportment instructor always said when I asked to have some on early mornings, walking between the davenport and chifforobe with perfect posture. Then she'd whack the books off my head with her crutches and quaff more coffee while I gathered the weights and rebegan my steps... 

With a mindset like this , you are the perfect choice to give the sex ed classes at High School, Comrade Jace.

Sex is a crutch for the mind, a temporary escape from a the bleak and dour abysss, that is our reality. All crutches are to be despised. Just face the oncoming agony and misery of life with a stoic expression on your faces, and wait for the misery to end on the date of your death. There's no need to selfishly throw more unwanted babies into this well of misery.

Perfect! Forget about those crazy, bizarro world Christian abstinence classes. This is the way to go. 

[Jace, Extat]

58 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

With a mindset like this , you are the perfect choice to give the sex ed classes at High School, Comrade Jace.

Sex is a crutch for the mind, a temporary escape from a the bleak and dour abysss, that is our reality. All crutches are to be despised. Just face the oncoming agony and misery of life with a stoic expression on your faces, and wait for the misery to end on the date of your death. There's no need to selfishly throw more unwanted babies into this well of misery.

Perfect! Forget about those crazy, bizarro world Christian abstinence classes. This is the way to go. 

I feel seen.

[Gaston de Foix]

On 9/13/2022 at 11:47 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

QNut candidates haven’t, for the most part, done well in South Carolina.  I don’t think Graham has much to worry about on that score, for now.

My wife (who admits she knows little about politics) observed that Graham seems to have presidential ambitions, and now I can't get the thought out of my head.  Everything he has said and done since 2015-6 makes sense if you see him actively learning the lessons from his 2016 defeat.  He's rationally gone where the power is in a Republican primary: Trump and the evangelical base.   

Of course, a 15 week ban could embody a new national consensus if it also allowed women to obtain abortions before 15 weeks a la Roberts.  The weird thing in all this is the shadow-boxing over the eventual constitutional challenge in the SC. 

From a Dem perspective, it would be a mistake to enact national legalization.  The conservative majority (possibly minus Roberts) would strike it down on federalism grounds.  For such legislation to be upheld, the Dems would need them both and I seriously doubt that Kavanaugh will ever strike down major legislation enacted by the Republican party. 

By contrast, if the Republicans pass a 15 week ban (which obviously will not happen before 2025), it will pass a federalism challenge. 

And, hopefully, then after appropriate political reaction to this overreaching, the Dems will be able to legalize abortion up to 15 weeks, and with rape, incest, and health of the mother exceptions, throughout the country.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

My wife (who admits she knows little about politics) observed that Graham seems to have presidential ambitions, and now I can't get the thought out of my head.  Everything he has said and done since 2015-6 makes sense if you see him actively learning the lessons from his 2016 defeat.  He's rationally gone where the power is in a Republican primary: Trump and the evangelical base.   

Of course, a 15 week ban could embody a new national consensus if it also allowed women to obtain abortions before 15 weeks a la Roberts.  The weird thing in all this is the shadow-boxing over the eventual constitutional challenge in the SC. 

From a Dem perspective, it would be a mistake to enact national legalization.  The conservative majority (possibly minus Roberts) would strike it down on federalism grounds.  For such legislation to be upheld, the Dems would need them both and I seriously doubt that Kavanaugh will ever strike down major legislation enacted by the Republican party. 

By contrast, if the Republicans pass a 15 week ban (which obviously will not happen before 2025), it will pass a federalism challenge. 

And, hopefully, then after appropriate political reaction to this overreaching, the Dems will be able to legalize abortion up to 15 weeks, and with rape, incest, and health of the mother exceptions, throughout the country.  

I simply hope this galvanizes everyone to get out to vote this November.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Is this confirmed?  Has the potential rail strike been averted?

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

...and Howard Schultz announces a 2024 presidential bid after reading this page, running on a single issue, anti-union campaign.  

After an ambiguous incident in a Des Moines Starbucks bathroom on the eve of Iowa Caucus, life imitates art as "latte" takes on it's meaning from Idiocracy. 

Protestors jeer Schultz with chants of "$5 latte".

The nation slumps onward.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

From a Dem perspective, it would be a mistake to enact national legalization.  The conservative majority (possibly minus Roberts) would strike it down on federalism grounds.  For such legislation to be upheld, the Dems would need them both and I seriously doubt that Kavanaugh will ever strike down major legislation enacted by the Republican party. 

By contrast, if the Republicans pass a 15 week ban (which obviously will not happen before 2025), it will pass a federalism challenge. 

Translation: The Supreme Court is completely broken.

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is this confirmed?  Has the potential rail strike been averted?

 

Yup.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

From a Dem perspective, it would be a mistake to enact national legalization.  The conservative majority (possibly minus Roberts) would strike it down on federalism grounds.  For such legislation to be upheld, the Dems would need them both and I seriously doubt that Kavanaugh will ever strike down major legislation enacted by the Republican party. 

By contrast, if the Republicans pass a 15 week ban (which obviously will not happen before 2025), it will pass a federalism challenge. 

Kavanaugh did say in his Dobbs concurrence that he would strike down a national ban as well. He of course could be lying, and that is the safer bet. But the thing that gives me pause is that there was absolutely no need for him to say that unless he meant it. SCOTUS justices don't need to cover their asses like that, and the other 4 conservatives in the majority certainly felt no need to say anything like that.

[Luzifer's right hand]

17 minutes ago, Fez said:

Kavanaugh did say in his Dobbs concurrence that he would strike down a national ban as well. He of course could be lying, and that is the safer bet. But the thing that gives me pause is that there was absolutely no need for him to say that unless he meant it. SCOTUS justices don't need to cover their asses like that, and the other 4 conservatives in the majority certainly felt no need to say anything like that.

Isn't there an election in fall? Makes total sense for supporters of the conservative side to lie as much as possible.

[Fez]

12 minutes ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

Isn't there an election in fall? Makes total sense for supporters of the conservative side to lie as much as possible.

If Republican electoral prospects are what Kavanaugh was motivated by here, he would gone with Roberts instead to completely gut Roe in practice but leave it on the books in name.

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Kavanaugh did say in his Dobbs concurrence that he would strike down a national ban as well. He of course could be lying, and that is the safer bet. But the thing that gives me pause is that there was absolutely no need for him to say that unless he meant it. SCOTUS justices don't need to cover their asses like that, and the other 4 conservatives in the majority certainly felt no need to say anything like that.

He said the opposite. 

"On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult questions of American social and economic policy that the Constitution does not address."  

He said something similar at oral argument.  What he said is, on one level, in line with existing SC precedent.  The Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v Carhart.  In that case, apprehensive that Congress would enact Roe into law, Scalia and Thomas wrote separately to suggest that they were not foreclosing the federalism questions about whether Congress had the power to do so.  If Roe or something less than Roe passes Congress (which would require filibuster abolition for a start), you can expect Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett to strike it down on federalism grounds. 

To win, the liberals would need both Roberts and Kavanaugh.  Kavanaugh will reverse-ferret because he will never willingly oppose a long-term policy win for the Republican party.  But even if he seems to stick behind his equivocal dicta in Dobbs, you can't count on Robert's vote either.  For the very reasons he dissented in Dobbs, he may think there is unpredictability, and less litigation, if left to the states.  And his cramped reading of the commerce clause power in NFIB, which everyone thought at the time a meaningless if not pyrrhic victory, will be vindicated. 

 

[Gaston de Foix]

41 minutes ago, Fez said:

If Republican electoral prospects are what Kavanaugh was motivated by here, he would gone with Roberts instead to completely gut Roe in practice but leave it on the books in name.

Kavanaugh cares about the long-term agenda of the Republican party, not short-term results.  Political power is to be used to generate change, not simply husbanded for its own sake.  Getting rid of Roe has been the second-most important objective for the Republican movement and Republican voters (after cutting taxes) for the last 50 years.  If he had gone with Roberts, he would not just have gotten the Roberts treatment.  He would have been denounced as a traitor at a level that Souter and Kennedy never faced.  Getting rid of Roe is why 48 senators risked their political necks to put a man credibly accused of sexual assault on the High Court.  He was never going to betray them.  His whole career he has been loyal to his mentors and promoters: Kennedy, Starr, Bush.  

Anyway, not overturning Roe, or just cutting it back, might also have been politically bad for Republicans. Many voters would be disaffected and stay home.  Roberts didn't vote the way he did to protect Republicans, but to protect conservatism and the judiciary, and his own reputation.  

[Mindwalker]

Mark Meadows finally complying with the Jan6 subpoena.

 

Mark Meadows Complying With DoJ Jan. 6 Subpoena 'Not Good for Trump'—Lawyer

Meadows handed prosecutors the same documents that were requested via a subpoena also issued to him by the House Select Committee investigating the events leading up to the insurrection, according to CNN. ...

Others have also suggested the reports proves previous speculation that Meadows was not charged by the DoJ for failing to comply with his congressional subpoena.

Former Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino also escaped prosecution for not complying with his congressional subpoena, but former White House adviser Steve Bannon and ex-Trump's trade adviser Peter Navarro were charged.

https://www.newsweek.com/mark-meadows-doj-subpoena-jan6-trump-1743132