US politics: Rovenber is coming.

[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.

 

[Tywin 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.  

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Kavanaugh did say in his Dobbs concurrence that he would strike down a national ban as well.

Yeah he based the entire opinion on judicial restraint when he clearly had no reason to.  I know the rabble here will call this naive, but there's similarly no reason for him to change his mind on this.  Particularly because he knows full well that decision is going to be his legacy.  Even if Congress passes an abortion law either way - which is very unlikely to happen anytime soon anyway - I'd bet he doesn't vote to strike it down.  I wouldn't bet a lot, mind you, but maybe a month's pay.

 

[Fez]

44 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

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.  

He did in Biden v. Texas; joining Roberts and the liberals.

[DMC]

Roberts' recent statements reaffirm he's not gonna touch abortion legislation either way.  As does Kavanaugh's decision.  The other four are a different story, but as long as this is the makeup of the court it's hard to see the status quo changing.  This is it, on their end.  SC justices' decisions are entirely political and always have been, but that doesn't mean they're gonna contradict themselves just to side with their party.  Indeed, that's fundamentally antithetical to the attitudinal model.

[TormundsWoman]

9 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... 

I feel attacked by your comportment instructor, Jace.

Maybe it's time for a new cup of coffee so I can read what "the rabble here says" about Kavanaugh, according to DMC!

 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

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

I just hope he liked my Harry Potter joke.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

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. 

Yeah, this. If they ban abortion they'll be fine with it. If they allow it via law they'll strike that law down. 

There is no internal logic or behavior to be seen; the best way to determine the court's behavior is to determine what the outcome they want to have is, and then justify it however they like. 

 

[Wade1865]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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

 

Ser Scot A Ellison — another success for Uncle Joe. He’s racking them up lately.

[Wade1865]

5 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

...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.

 

Larry of the Lake — I hadn’t realized Howard considered a presidential run as an independent back in 2020, before changing his mind.

This, two years after the bathroom incident, when non-paying black customers were denied bathroom access. One white person, also non-paying, was granted access. In response, 8000 stores were closed for a day to conduct racial bias training. Moreover, Starbucks caved to pressure and became the city bathroom; but walked that back, giving each store the authority / responsibility to deny access by case.

As union support has increased, organizers have also been increasingly fired — approaching 100 in recent months. Notably, Starbucks recently announced an intent to overhaul their stores, which might reduce labor-dependence (e.g., more efficient equipment / emplacing ordering kiosks, maybe?).

SBUX was $62 USD a share in 2018, and rose to $118 a few years later. And despite the Covid-19 and associated issues, still retains a share price of $92.

[Wade1865]

It surprises me how few people support unionization. Why, when it tends to increase income and benefits.

But I’m not complaining..

[Larry of the Lawn]

40 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

It surprises me how few people support unionization. Why, when it tends to increase income and benefits

There is a massive amount of money spent to keep people anti-union in this country.   And mainstream media is incredibly anti-union as well.

Why are you not complaining about it?  Aren't you patriotic?  Don't you want what's best for your fellow citizens?  Don't they deserve fair pay and working conditions?  Don't you want them to be happy and healthy consumers?

[Ormond]

15 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

UNIONS -- BACK IN STYLE

I

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

•  

If you don't live in a "right to work" state, you may be employed in a position where you are required to join a union and pay dues in order to keep your job. I would imagine many of the 14% are people who are in that position. 

[Wade1865]

16 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

There is a massive amount of money spent to keep people anti-union in this country.   And mainstream media is incredibly anti-union as well.

Why are you not complaining about it?  Aren't you patriotic?  Don't you want what's best for your fellow citizens?  Don't they deserve fair pay and working conditions?  Don't you want them to be happy and healthy consumers?

Larry of the Lake — I’m a nationalist, was never a patriot. And I’m not really anti-union, I just don’t support them. On the other hand, I also wouldn’t support the moneyed interest and their mainstream media lackeys support against unions.

I want my purchases to be cheap and good; and my profits, high and consistent. I wouldn’t actively beat down the laborer — I respect labor. In fact, I tip better than most people; e.g., 25% or more for food and drinks, and treat each laborer with genuine respect.

Unfortunately, the condition of Starbucks stores has degraded in environment and atmosphere — probably due to capital-labor issues (and how their shenanigans play out in pop culture), which is why I now go to boutique competitors when available.

Both labor and capital are ruining my favorite places to hang out. Why complain when I can just walk away and find something better.