US Politics: Catch the big crook under the “Big Cone”

[Martell Spy]

What to know about the lawsuit aiming to ban medication abortion drug mifepristone

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/politics/fda-medication-abortion-lawsuit-mifepristone/index.html

Quote

 

Kacsmaryk told the plaintiffs that they had until February 24 to file a joint response to briefs submitted by the FDA and Danco.

In an earlier order, the judge said that following the deadline, “briefing will then be closed on the matter, absent any ‘exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.’”

Once the response is in, Kacsmaryk can rule at any time after that, though he could also call for a hearing, or ask for additional responses as well.

 

 

[DMC]

On 2/23/2023 at 12:40 PM, Kalnestk Oblast said:

It still remains that Trump is by a large margin the best POTUS that evangelicals have ever had so they will have very high loyalty regardless of their viewpoint on how holy Trump actually is.

This is a gross exaggeration at best.  Indeed, it's fairly clear Dubya was a more beneficial president to white evangelicals by a significant margin.

The first thing there would be comparing courts - and yes, Trump was "better" on appointing justices for the SC if we're just looking at bare numbers.  But consider the context.  John Roberts may not be everything the Christian Right wanted him to be, but nobody knew that at the time.  Frankly, if he wasn't in the Chief Justice seat - and therefore actually felt a responsibility to maintain the Court's legitimacy - his voting behavior may well have been as aligned with the Christian Right as the other Trump justices.  Regardless, every single Senate Republican at the time was on board with the nomination, as was the Federalist Society.

The one issue you could identify with Dubya is nominating Harriet Miers, but that didn't last long and he rectified it with Sam Alito - a justice demonstrably more conservative, and religiously conservative, than any of Trump's three.  Further, the only reason Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were on the Federalist Society's list for Trump to being with was because Dubya nominated both to Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals.  Hell, Kavanaugh was Dubya's staff secretary for much of his first term.

All that being said, the reason Dubya was clearly better for white evangelicals was more because he actually WAS one.  And this did have policy implications.  But before we get to that, the fact Dubya was a born again Christian - and both his personal and professional life benefited from that turnaround in terms of stability and success - should not be discounted.

Moreover, he campaigned on it.  Trump may have uttered the shibboleths when necessary, but Dubya 2000 was the "victory" of "compassionate conservatism."  Not even Reagan campaigned on the religious right's message so overtly.  And Dubya continued to!  SSM bans were crucial to his re-elect in 2004.

Plus, of course, there's the Iraq War.  No president has - thankfully - come nearly as close as Dubya to giving those crazy fucks the holy and/or apocalyptic war they so desperately desire.

Finally, and most importantly, Trump didn't do anything approaching Dubya's Faith-Based Initiatives - which he enacted within a week of taking office via EOs.  This is where Dubya started a program that literally gave certain churches BILLIONS of dollars annually.  On top of that, he also exploited the 1996 Welfare Reform to give churches wide purview in helping to "implement" the program.  I'll let Bobby Scott's office explain, but the point is Trump can't compare to this:

Quote

Under the Bush Administration, Charitable Choice was vastly expanded through a series of Executive Orders. In 2001, Executive Orders 13198 and 13199 created and set out organizational guidelines for a White House Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives.Executive Orders 13280 (2002), 13342 (2004), and 13397 (2006) mandated that the departments of Justice, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Commerce, Veteran Affairs, and Homeland Security, the Agency for International Development and the Small Business Administration all establish a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In 2002, the most controversial Executive Order was issued – Executive Order 13279 – which made it easier for churches and other faith-based organizations to receive federal money by letting them circumvent certain anti-discrimination laws. Under the umbrella of the Faith-Based Initiative, the Bush administration began allowing discrimination with federal money for the first time since the 1960s.

For decades, religious organizations have been providing social services, including in some cases with the use of government funds, without the Faith-Based Initiative. The fundamental differences between the Faith-Based Initiative and the long-standing legal provisions regarding faith-based organizations' participation are: (1) allowing proselytization during a secular, government-funded program; and (2) permitting employment discrimination with federal funds. Any program that could be federally funded under the Faith-Based Initiative could have been funded before it if the sponsoring organization agreed not to discriminate in employment and not to proselytize. Moreover, no religious organization has stated to Congress that it needs to be able to proselytize or discriminate in order to run a successful program. There has been a general consensus that proselytization with federal funds violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, but the issue of whether discrimination with federal funds should be permitted remains hotly debated.

 

[Zorral]

Welcome back, @DMC.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Welcome back, @DMC.

Thanks Zorral, but it's very temporary.  Because I'm sick of this shit and want to say it publicly.  Which, of course, we aren't allowed to.  We're not supposed to publicly discuss our posts that have been publicly been disciplined for..reasons.  That totally makes sense in a totalitarian state.  Great job guys!

Anyway, if you are able to read this before the "mods" suppress speech and delete it, I got suspended for fucking around with Jace and Wade a few weeks ago.  NONE of us thought it was a big deal - and indeed I was talking to Jace via PM before it spilled over to the thread - but @mormont felt the need to suspend me to patronizingly "cool down."

So, if @mormont enabled by @Ran don't want me to post as myself, that's fine!  I enjoy talking to all of y'all, but I'm not gonna change.  Frankly, just like Ron DeSantis, they can both eat a dick, I'm done.  Wish you all the best!

[DireWolfSpirit]

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxGMC_fa0MEXQoAxoZwH1nO7_3yZK31pqV

[Ran]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Thanks Zorral, but it's very temporary.  Because I'm sick of this shit and want to say it publicly.  Which, of course, we aren't allowed to.  We're not supposed to publicly discuss our posts that have been publicly been disciplined for..reasons.  That totally makes sense in a totalitarian state.  Great job guys!

Anyway, if you are able to read this before the "mods" suppress speech and delete it, I got suspended for fucking around with Jace and Wade a few weeks ago.  NONE of us thought it was a big deal - and indeed I was talking to Jace via PM before it spilled over to the thread

So, if @mormont enabled by @Ran don't want me to post as myself, that's fine!  I enjoy talking to all of y'all, but I'm not gonna change.  Frankly, just like Ron DeSantis, they can both eat a dick, I'm done.  Wish you all the best!

AKA "The rules shouldn't apply to me!"

I'm fine leaving this one up there, just because the aggrieved air of it is amusing, but it's a good way to close out the thread a little early. We can return to our usual circular firing squad in the next US politics thread.