Jump to content

US politics: Rovenber is coming.


Varysblackfyre321
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! B)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zorral said:

The American way -- destroy, walk away and start it somewhere else.  Yay USA.

Zorral — amusingly true. Remember, America is a business. If interests aren’t proven to be profitable; yes, She will walk away.

Deny Her interests, and suffer (directly or indirectly) the consequences.

Support Her faithfully, and enjoy  the benefits.

There’s a certain kind of morality in this immorality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

. I wouldn’t actively beat down the laborer — I respect labor.

A great way to respect labor is to support their rights to fair wages and a decent quality of life.  

Respect, on its own, does not feed, shelter, heal or protect anyone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

A great way to respect labor is to support their rights to fair wages and a decent quality of life.  

Respect, on its own, does not feed, shelter, heal or protect anyone.  

As a union exec I dealt with members in my union who disliked unions. We did the best for them, getting them a wage increase denied to them for silly reasons for example, but the employer treated as badly or worse the non union workers in the same workplace. Paying union dues is a very good bargain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

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

I'm sure in his view, transferring executive power over immigration/foreign policy to judges is not a win for the long-term interests of the Republican party/conservatism.  

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

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.

Yes, they are political but not always reliably partisan, except for judges like Alito. 

And they do place a premium on consistency.  But not invariably, and not over other allegiances like federalism and limitations on the commerce clause.   Scalia was all for limited government and a narrow reading of the commerce clause, and then ruled for the federal government in Gonzales v Raich because it concerned marijuana.  Thomas, to his credit, went the other way. 

When Obamacare came up, a lot of people me included thought Scalia had created a serious consistency problem for himself, because of Raich and it would tie his hands.  Not a bit of it.  

Congress legalizing or prohibiting abortion is going to be primarily a debate about the scope of Congress' power under the commerce clause.  That's something on which the Fed Soc offers a clear "right answer".  Roberts already has adopted a narrow view of the commerce clause.  Kav will do the same.  The fact that in his Dobbs concurrence he virtue-signals towards possibly being open to congressional legislation is just the trick he's mastered throughout his career: finding gullible liberals to carry water for him. 

If you don't believe me, go read his concurrence in Ramos on stare decisis.  It was clearly written with abortion in mind. Any faithful application of that analysis in Dobbs would have led him to uphold Roe.  He threw it overboard when he changed his mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Whelp...just couldn't figure out to help a guest with their very old iPhone get the internet to work so they could read Truth social and Fox News...I'm just...aghast... 

It's your last night. You should have got it working then put on some hardcore porn and hand it back to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...