US politics: just for you

[Wilbur]

So, Arizona's Attorney General Kris Mayes is out there taking names.

First, she announced that she will refuse to prosecute anyone who has an abortion.  Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs had given Mayes sole decision-making authority on this issue, so local county AGs cannot prosecute; only the AZ AG has the authority, and Mayes says she will preserve the right to abortion.  So the SCOTUS rulings on family planning are stymied in Arizona.

Second, Mayes announced that Arizona will not implement the recent SCOTUS rulings against LBGTQ+ communities or individuals, stating that SCOTUS' rulings were unjust, and that if SCOTUS wants to enforce them in Arizona, they are welcome to come out and try.  Instead, Mayes plans to fully enforce all of Arizona's public accommodations laws.

Third, and probably the item with the most practical impact, today is the day when Mayes' revocation of the Saudi permits for their water farms that the Ducey administration approved takes effect.  No more Saudi drilling groundwater in central Arizona, turning the groundwater into alfafa, and shipping the alfafa to the Middle East.  Fuck those guys with a wooden spoon.

Normally I am not a huge fan of politicians who change parties, but so far Mayes is ensuring that I am pleased to have voted for her.

 

[mcbigski]

On 7/4/2023 at 12:30 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

That might be objective fact, but what did Meuller actually believe? Lotsa people believe the Constitution says things that it does not, and lotsa people think/claim to think the constitution doesn't say some of the stuff that it does, very explicitly say. Example of the latter: Lauren Boebert giving a speech saying the Constitution didn't create a separation of church and state. If she thinks that, then you can be damned sure a lot of other people think it (or want her to think it), because she appears to be incapable of any original thought.

The Constitution rules out picking a specific state religion.  The Framers assumed a "moral and religious people" (per Adams).  That doesn't mean that the government must recuse itself from anything that any religion believes.  Literally true that the phrase 'separation of church and state' isn't in the Constitution.  As written, the Constitution was meant to allow freedom of religion, to avoid sectarian violence, IMO.  I suspect Rep Boebert is more informed on the Constitution than you, based on your comment.

On 7/4/2023 at 10:53 AM, Ormond said:

"Never" is a long time. The last time I saw a map showing which states had signed on to the pact which would give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner no matter who won the state, it included both Vermont and Delaware, who have the same three electoral votes North and South Dakota do. It also seems to me that younger generations are much less likely to have a strong identification with or loyalty to the particular state they live in. Many cultural changes which seemed impossible a century ago are now part of our everyday lives. 

That whole pact is just a way to insure election insecurity.  As bad as it is that Georgia, for example, can shut down counting until they know how many votes to find, it would be far worse if every other state had to accept the totals from what ever state is most corrupt in the voting process.  There is incentive for corrupt voting, so corrupt voting will happen, and that pact is a cynical ploy for increasing voting corruption.  

Biden 81 million lol.

[VigoTheCarpathian]

20 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

As bad as it is that Georgia, for example, can shut down counting until they know how many votes to find, it would be far worse if every other state had to accept the totals from what ever state is most corrupt in the voting process. 

Only one motherfucker was dumb enough to try and “find votes” in Georgia 2020. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Raffensperger_phone_call

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, mcbigski said:

The Constitution rules out picking a specific state religion.  The Framers assumed a "moral and religious people" (per Adams).  That doesn't mean that the government must recuse itself from anything that any religion believes.  Literally true that the phrase 'separation of church and state' isn't in the Constitution.  As written, the Constitution was meant to allow freedom of religion, to avoid sectarian violence, IMO.  I suspect Rep Boebert is more informed on the Constitution than you, based on your comment.

That whole pact is just a way to insure election insecurity.  As bad as it is that Georgia, for example, can shut down counting until they know how many votes to find, it would be far worse if every other state had to accept the totals from what ever state is most corrupt in the voting process.  There is incentive for corrupt voting, so corrupt voting will happen, and that pact is a cynical ploy for increasing voting corruption.  

Biden 81 million lol.

If Biden and or the democrats actually have the power to rig elections than it’s pointless to get worked up.

They’ve won so completely there’s literally no point in opposing them.

If you were consistent you’d stop complaining and just focus on what you can change in your day to day to life instead raging against things you can’t.

[James Arryn]

So Trump today announced that if re-elected he will immediately establish an immigration ban on anyone who is ‘Marxist, communist, or socialist’. He then mused upon what to do with those ‘already here’ and said that he would create new laws to ‘deal with’ them. He lead into this with a call back to his earlier ban on muslims as being the new template for dealing with the unwanted. 
 

So, we’re about 50/50 away from having a leader of the US who is now openly and literally walking the footsteps to historical fascism to cheering crowds of seemingly irrationally devoted followers, another box ticked. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Not to defend Trump, but the green card application process already asks you if you have been a member of a Communist Party, which can be grounds for denying you your green card. This is somewhat awkward for say immigrants from China who at a young age are almost by default made members (believe there is an exemption if it was involuntary). I've not been a fan of this restriction since it appears to be some cold war hangover, but as in all things, Trump's promises are wildly beyond what is current and probably unconstitutional.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, mcbigski said:

suspect Rep Boebert is more informed on the Constitution than you, based on your comment.

Are you suggesting Boebert has a better “edumacation” than Anti-Targ?  Because I find that difficult to believe.

Has it occurred to you, and Boebert, that the “Free Exercise Clause” of the first Amendment expressly guarantees the right of people to exercise no religion at all?  That, therefore, enshrining religious principles in law is an express violation and of individuals right to practice no religion?

That, therefore, while the words “separtion of church and state” do not appear in the US Constitution the “Establishment Clause”, and “Free Exercise Clause” of the First Amendment along with the “No Religious Tests” clause of Art VI of the US Constitution firmly and expressly state that Government in the US should be neutral toward religious faith and any efforts to enshrine religious beliefs into law in the US are violations of the express limitations on Government power written into the US Constitution.

Perhaps you could have Rep. Boebert give us and expansive exegesis upon her subtle and nuanced views about how individual religious faith interacts with the strictures of the US Constitution.

Please do link such writing or discussion from the very well “Edumacated” and distinguished Representative from Colorado’s third Congressional district.

I’ll wait to see what she, and you, have to say.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Guns, pew, pew, pew. Constitution starts and ends with the second amendment. Pew, pew, pew. 

I suspect that might be the degree of nuanced thought that comes out of Colorado's third district, or rather its representative.

[The Anti-Targ]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you suggesting Boebert has a better “edumacation” than Anti-Targ?  Because I find that difficult to believe.

Has it occurred to you, and Boebert, that the “Free Exercise Clause” of the first Amendment expressly guarantees the right of people to exercise no religion at all?  That, therefore, enshrining religious principles in law is an express violation and of individuals right to practice no religion?

That, therefore, while the words “separtion of church and state” do not appear in the US Constitution the “Establishment Clause”, and “Free Exercise Clause” of the First Amendment along with the “No Religious Tests” clause of Art VI of the US Constitution firmly and expressly state that Government in the US should be neutral toward religious faith and any efforts to enshrine religious beliefs into law in the US are violations of the express limitations on Government power written into the US Constitution.

Perhaps you could have Rep. Boebert give us and expansive exegesis upon her subtle and nuanced views about how individual religious faith interacts with the strictures of the US Constitution.

Please do link such writing or discussion from the very well “Edumacated” and distinguished Representative from Colorado’s third Congressional district.

I’ll wait to see what she, and you, have to say.

 

No no, I'm sure Lauren Boebert is better informed on the textual content of the Constitution than I am. That is probably an undeniable fact. But being informed is not the same as understanding. One could commit the Constitution to memory and still have a very poor understanding of it. Flat Earthers are possessed of all the information necessary to prove the Earth is, more or less, spherical, yet they insist on believing in its flatness.

[Week]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

No no, I'm sure Lauren Boebert is better informed on the textual content of the Constitution than I am. That is probably an undeniable fact. But being informed is not the same as understanding. One could commit the Constitution to memory and still have a very poor understanding of it. Flat Earthers are possessed of all the information necessary to prove the Earth is, more or less, spherical, yet they insist on believing in its flatness.

I suspect the only things that she is better informed on are giving food poisoning to clientele, defending her creep ex-husband (public indecency at a bowling alley), and general idiocy that mcb must admire.

(Opinion)

https://www.salon.com/2023/05/18/lauren-boeberts-divorce-exposes-the-dark-little-secret-of-red-state-life/

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

No no, I'm sure Lauren Boebert is better informed on the textual content of the Constitution than I am. That is probably an undeniable fact. But being informed is not the same as understanding. One could commit the Constitution to memory and still have a very poor understanding of it. Flat Earthers are possessed of all the information necessary to prove the Earth is, more or less, spherical, yet they insist on believing in its flatness.

Lauren Boebert is among the most ignorant human beings I have ever seen in public life.  She is the personification of the “Dunning-Kruger Effect”.  I see no “common sense” from her.  I see pride of ignorance and confusion when her talking points fail to elicit her expected reactions.

That Lauren Boebert is an elected member of the United States House of Representatives is a shame to the House, the Republican caucus, the State of Colorado, and the United States at large.

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[The Anti-Targ]

I certainly know the difference between a wonton and wanton, so there is that.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That Lauren Boebert is an elected member of the United States House of Representatives is a shame to the House, the Republican caucus, the State of Colorado, and the United States at large.

 

Cheer up, Scot. We all have our elected cretins. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

We live in the worst timeline…

 

[Ormond]

10 hours ago, Wilbur said:

 

Second, Mayes announced that Arizona will not implement the recent SCOTUS rulings against LBGTQ+ communities or individuals, stating that SCOTUS' rulings were unjust, and that if SCOTUS wants to enforce them in Arizona, they are welcome to come out and try.  Instead, Mayes plans to fully enforce all of Arizona's public accommodations laws.

 

 

I am a gay man myself and I find the above rather frightening. If Arizona does this about the most recent ruling, doesn't this give right-wing Attorney Generals in other states the "permission" to do the same with the Supreme Court's rulings on same sex marriage and sodomy laws? Personally I would rather have to deal with the religious exemption to public accommodation than have individual states go back to not recognizing same sex marriage and imprisoning people for consensual sexual acts with someone of the same gender. The latter is a much scarier prospect to me. 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Ormond

[Zorral]

They steal and steal and steal.  But of course, like Tommy Shelby, deSantis and the fascists are all murderers, thieves, extortionists and criminals too, so what the eff do they care.

‘Peaky Blinders’ Slams Ron DeSantis Campaign For Use Of Tommy Shelby Video

https://deadline.com/2023/07/peaky-blinders-slams-ron-desantis-campaign-use-tommy-shelby-video-1235430520/

By the way the latest desantis performance is to rid the state of Florida of paying alimony.  I suppose this will lose him the votes of rethug white ladies whose husbands like to dump them in favor of younger trophy wives?  

Edited July 6, 2023 by Zorral

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I am a gay man myself and I find the above rather frightening. If Arizona does this about the most recent ruling, doesn't this give right-wing Attorney Generals in other states the "permission" to do the same with the Supreme Court's rulings on same sex marriage and sodomy laws? Personally I would rather have to deal with the religious exemption to public accommodation than have individual states go back to not recognizing same sex marriage and imprisoning people for consensual sexual acts with someone of the same gender. The latter is a much scarier prospect to me. 

So long as AZ can provide a State Law basis for continuing to enforce public accommodations rules they aren’t violating anything the SCOTUS said.

[Ormond]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So long as AZ can provide a State Law basis for continuing to enforce public accommodations rules they aren’t violating anything the SCOTUS said.

That's good to know. But I am sure there are sodomy laws still on the books in some states that would provide a basis for criminalizing same sex consensual sexual acts. Why doesn't your reasoning apply to them? As a non-lawyer I'd like to know that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Ormond said:

That's good to know. But I am sure there are sodomy laws still on the books in some states that would provide a basis for criminalizing same sex consensual sexual acts. Why doesn't your reasoning apply to them? As a non-lawyer I'd like to know that.

I may have mispoken.  I was thinking the wedding website case involved a federal law or regulation.  Now that I cogitation on it a bit more I think it was a Colorado Statute.  However, the holding doesn’t invalidate any Statute… except the Colorado one at issue in that State.  

Other States enforcing their laws that weren’t at issue in that case aren’t technically violating any order… because the order didn’t direct apply to them.  Now… a local Federal court may be quick to issue an injunction against the AZ AG if suit is brought… but until that is done… the AZ AG is still not in violation of anything that directly applies to it.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Wilbur]

25 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I am a gay man myself and I find the above rather frightening. If Arizona does this about the most recent ruling, doesn't this give right-wing Attorney Generals in other states the "permission" to do the same with the Supreme Court's rulings on same sex marriage and sodomy laws? Personally I would rather have to deal with the religious exemption to public accommodation than have individual states go back to not recognizing same sex marriage and imprisoning people for consensual sexual acts with someone of the same gender. The latter is a much scarier prospect to me. 

I am not a lawyer, and I am not familiar with the situations in most states outside of AZ.

But you raise a very valid point, and we should all be kind of concerned about a contradictory pattern of laws from state to state in combination with a fluctuating SCOTUS that is currently blowing "right".  States should be able to have different approaches to different issues, but we need to have the SCOTUS moving in a direction that is predictable, which the current court isn't doing with their Culture War focus.

Here in AZ, Rs and Ds worked together to create the current accommodation laws prior to the onset of the Trump Crazies in power.  As a Republican, I think that the government shouldn't regulate individual citizen behaviors unless absolutely necessary, so the current AZ laws set out a kind of sensible middle ground that all of us ought to be able live within.  Generally, AZ law as it currently stands doesn't support too much government interference in individual lives.

And until Thomas and Alito retire or are forced out by scandal, I feel that a reasonable person can take the moderate approach of enforcing AZ accommodation laws and not worrying too much about the current intellectual excursion of the SCOTUS in the hope that as the membership changes in the next decade, the court returns to a more sensible approach.