US Politics the Biden's age a nothing burger edition

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Calls for violence are largely protected speech in the US. The only times they are not is when it is either directed at one person or when it is incitement towards a relatively immediate threat. So unless you believe that students at Penn can somehow cause the direct destruction of Israel it is not a violation.

You are conflating two completely different issues. The issue you are talking about is whether certain speech is outright illegal; it has nothing to do with universities. The issue discussed in the congressional hearing is whether certain speech is against the code of conduct for a given college. All outright illegal speech is (one hopes) against the code of conduct of any reasonable institution, but the codes of conduct of specific institutions exclude additional speech. For example, it is not illegal to refer to individual of certain races or ethnicities using certain racial or ethnic slurs, but it is against the code of conduct of practically every university. Similarly, one would hope that calls for genocide of a given people are against the code of conduct... but this appears not to be the case at Harvard, MIT or Penn.

[Zorral]

Judge grants Texas woman’s emergency abortion request
Kate Cox, whose fetus has been diagnosed with a fatal condition, had to sue Texas and put her anguish on full display before being allowed to receive an abortion.

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/judge-grants-texas-abortion-kate-cox-rcna128587
 

[Zorral]

Dec. 7, 2023, 6:00 AM EST
By Zeeshan Aleem, MSNBC Opinion Writer/Editor

The GOP just conflated antisemitism with anti-Zionism. That’s problematic.
Republicans just used a disingenuous tactic to try to shut down criticism of Israel.

"The belief that anti-Zionism isn’t inherently antisemitic is why three Jewish House Democrats — Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Daniel Goldman of New York and Jamie Raskin of Maryland — urged fellow Democrats to vote “present” on the resolution."

Quote

 

House Republicans put a resolution condemning antisemitism up for a vote on Tuesday. At first blush, that seemed like a laudable gesture. Antisemitism is on the rise around the world, and any spread of bigotry should and must be fought. But the resolution also contained controversial language declaring that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” That wording conflates criticism of Israel with bigotry against Jews, and the intention of such language is to discourage critical debate over Israel in Washington.

The measure passed 311 to 14, with scores of Democrats joining Republicans. But more Democrats saw through the GOP’s tactics than that lopsided result might suggest — 92 voted present. That was a small but promising sign that Democrats are aware that Republicans are cynically trying to weaponize the issue of antisemitism, using it as a way to shield Israel from criticism as it wages an increasingly polarizing war in the Gaza Strip. ....

fellow Democrats to vote “present” on the resolution. “Under this resolution, those who love Israel deeply but criticize some of its policy approaches could be considered anti-Zionist,” Nadler, the longest-serving Jewish member of the House, said in a floor speech. “That could make every Democratic Jewish member of this body, because they all criticized the recent Israeli judicial reform package, de facto antisemites. Might that be the author’s intention?”

It’s audacious for a party that’s taken an aggressive white nationalist turn to try to pull off this tactic. The party’s de facto leader, former President Donald Trump, bellows antisemitic tropes, boosts antisemitic white supremacists online and found the 2017 Charlottesville neo-Nazi gathering to have had some “very fine people.” The MAGA movement is a cesspool of antisemitic conspiracy theories. Some right-wingers would try to push back by calling attention to the GOP’s commitment to unconditionally supporting Israel and Zionism. But as many Jewish commentators have pointed out, there is a long and dark history of people identifying as friends of Zionism on religious or geostrategic grounds who are flagrant antisemites.

The Republicans tried putting liberal and progressive Democrats in a bind by daring them to vote against a resolution that was outwardly only about antisemitism. Insofar as the resolution passed with just 14 objections, they succeeded. But one hopes that with comments like Nadler’s, which got some traction online, and critical commentary about it in the media, the Democrats will grow bolder in pushing back against such tactics over the long term.

 

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/antisemitism-resolution-antizionism-republicans-rcna128348

These are the sorts of groups that have been shut down by the universities, by the way.  Others too, but these are the ones quite predominate around here.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Zorral

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

How about supporting US involvement in Iraq in the 2000s?  Should that have gotten students suspended or censured or whatever the fuck?

Because that would have been 100% a call for violence and was incredibly common. 

You do realize why this comparison doesn't work, right? 

[Kalbear]

24 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Similarly, one would hope that calls for genocide of a given people are against the code of conduct... but this appears not to be the case at Harvard, MIT or Penn.

And that's where it comes up as 'it depends on the context'.

• Is a few people talking with friends about it against the code of conduct?
• Is a rally outside of their student union against the code of conduct?
• Is a professor bringing it up as an example of things people have said against the code of conduct? (which is stupid, but is also something that was brought up recently as an example of a violation)

You can take a look at their actual policy and decide for yourself if you can say that genocide is always against policy no matter what.

As Ken White (popehat) pointed out, this was all just a stupid fucking gotcha that y'all are falling for.

Quote

 

Congresswoman Stefanik: Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT’s code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no?  

President Kornbluth: If targeted at individuals not making public statements. 

Congresswoman Stefanik: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment? 

President Kornbluth: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.

Congresswoman Stefanik: But you've heard chants for Intifada. 

 

Because Intifada is not the genocide of Jews. If you want to talk about it being about Israelis that's one thing. If they said 'eh, it depends' they'd get hammered on that, if they said 'yes' then they'd get the above comment. And that's not even the same thing as saying that a group has the right to a violent revolution against someone else, either!

Again, y'all are falling for an absolute shitstain of a person because they happen to back a cultural viewpoint you kind of want right now. Or maybe not - maybe some of you are fine with great replacement theory. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You do realize why this comparison doesn't work, right? 

Well I have no idea whether or not it works.  I can tell you why I selected it though.    First off, I'm specifically addressing Scot's "calls for violence"  language.  He's saying they aren't protected speech.  He's going even further and saying that because they aren't protected speech universities should crack down on them.  I selected an example of a call for violence that no body in their right mind would try to claim should be some type of off limits speech.  

Now, if you want to use that to talk about something completely different or attack some argument that I'm not making, go right ahead.  

Edited December 8, 2023 by Larry of the Lawn
If

[Darzin]

I think it would be different if these universities were principled defenders of free speech but in other areas they are not. It's very obvious that it's only calling for genocide of Jews which is allowed. Which is way way worse then either censoring all hate speech or allowing hate speech based on the principles of free expression. Allowing hate speech against some groups but not others implies a tacit acceptance of it's legitimacy. 

[mormont]

 

5 hours ago, Darzin said:

It's very obvious that it's only calling for genocide of Jews which is allowed.

Well, in Florida at least, that's not true.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/10/florida-republican-michelle-salzman-palestine

Quote

 

In the speech in support of the ceasefire resolution, the Democratic Florida state representative Angie Nixon said: “We are at 10,000 dead Palestinians. How many will be enough?”

“All of them,” Michelle Salzman called in reply.

 

 

[Consigliere]

11 hours ago, Zorral said:

Judge grants Texas woman’s emergency abortion request
Kate Cox, whose fetus has been diagnosed with a fatal condition, had to sue Texas and put her anguish on full display before being allowed to receive an abortion.

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/judge-grants-texas-abortion-kate-cox-rcna128587
 

The article has been updated: UPDATE (Dec. 7, 2023 5:51 p.m. E.T.): On Thursday afternoon, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton threatened legal action if Kate Cox’s abortion takes place.

edit. remove twitter link.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-responds-travis-county-tro

Quote

AUSTIN – The Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) granted by the Travis County district judge purporting to allow an abortion to proceed will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws. This includes first degree felony prosecutions, Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.004, and civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation, Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 170A.005, 171.207-211. And, while the TRO purports to temporarily enjoin actions brought by the OAG and TMB against Dr. Karsan and her staff, it does not enjoin actions brought by private citizens. Tex. Health & Safety Code § ¬¬171.207. Nor does it prohibit a district or county attorney from enforcing Texas’ pre-Roe abortion laws against Dr. Karsan or anyone else. The TRO will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Consigliere

[kissdbyfire]

Can't. Make. This. Shit. Up.

 

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Consigliere said:

The article has been updated

Saw this too, here, this AM.

Cox's ordeal to save her life and future fertility still isn't over because Paxton Says NO because He says judge not medically qualified to rule on this, while, obviously corrupt, criminal Paxton -- whose own party wants him OUT -- is medically qualified to do so.

Texas judge allows abortion in Cox case as AG Paxton threatens legal action

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/07/texas-abortion-judge-ruling/

Quote

 

.... “The Court finds that Ms. Cox’s life, health, and fertility are currently at serious risk,” the judge wrote. “The longer Ms. Cox stays pregnant, the greater the risks to her life.”

The Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, threatened legal action if the abortion takes place. In a letter addressed to the hospitals involved with Cox’s care, Paxton said that Cox’s doctor did not meet “all of the elements necessary to fall within an exception to Texas’ abortion laws” and that the judge was “not medically qualified to make this determination.”

Paxton said the judge’s order would not excuse the hospital or doctor from civil or criminal liability “including first degree felony prosecutions.” He added that the temporary restraining order “will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.” ....

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Zorral

[Zorral]

MICHELLE GOLDBERG
At a Hearing on Israel, University Presidents Walked Into a Trap
Dec. 7, 2023

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/opinion/university-presidents-antisemitism.html

Quote

 

...  “My God, have you seen this?” wrote my friend, a staunch liberal. “I can’t believe I find myself agreeing with Elise Stefanik on anything, but I do here.”

If I’d seen only that excerpt from the hearing, which has now led to denunciations of the college leaders by the White House and the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, among many others, I might have felt the same way. All three presidents — Claudine Gay of Harvard, Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T. and Elizabeth Magill of the University of Pennsylvania — acquitted themselves poorly, appearing morally obtuse and coldly legalistic. It was a moment that seemed to confirm many people’s worst fears about the tolerance for Jew hatred in academia.

But while it might seem hard to believe that there’s any context that could make the responses of the college presidents OK, watching the whole hearing at least makes them more understandable. In the questioning before the now infamous exchange, you can see the trap Stefanik laid.

“You understand that the use of the term ‘intifada’ in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?” she asked Gay.

Gay responded that such language was “abhorrent.” Stefanik then badgered her to admit that students chanting about intifada were calling for genocide, and asked angrily whether that was against Harvard’s code of conduct. “Will admissions offers be rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or applicants who say, ‘From the river to the sea’ or ‘intifada,’ advocating for the murder of Jews?” Gay repeated that such “hateful, reckless, offensive speech is personally abhorrent to me,” but said action would be taken only “when speech crosses into conduct.”

So later in the hearing, when Stefanik again started questioning Gay, Kornbluth and Magill about whether it was permissible for students to call for the genocide of the Jews, she was referring, it seemed clear, to common pro-Palestinian rhetoric and trying to get the university presidents to commit to disciplining those who use it. Doing so would be an egregious violation of free speech. After all, even if you’re disgusted by slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” their meaning is contested in a way that, say, “Gas the Jews” is not. Finding themselves in a no-win situation, the university presidents resorted to bloodless bureaucratic contortions, and walked into a public relations disaster. ....

.... Amid the uproar over the campus antisemitism hearing, many have claimed that if Stefanik were asking about attacks on any other ethnic group, there would have been no waffling. But Stefanik did ask about another group. Her first question to Gay was, “A Harvard student calling for the mass murder of African Americans is not protected free speech at Harvard, correct?” Gay started to respond, “Our commitment to free speech,” but Stefanik, perhaps realizing she wasn’t going to get the answer she wanted, cut her off and changed tack. ....

.... It’s not clear that these college presidents will keep their jobs after their performance at the hearing. But whatever happens, we’re likely to see a crackdown on many forms of pro-Palestinian expression.* On Wednesday, amid mounting calls for her resignation, Penn’s Magill posted an apologetic video statement online. For decades, said Magill, Penn’s policies on speech have been guided by the Constitution and the law, but going forward, a different framework may apply. ....

[*Which is neither anti-Semitic, nor is it free speech.  It's the shutting down of what the oppressors of Palestinians don't want anyone to hear or information they don't want to be out there.  It literally is censorship. We've certainly seen this at Columbia, and it's getting very close to being the case at NYU.  CUNY, however, the system that deliberately attempts to serve the poorer and non-affluent sectors of students, not so much. This is because, being what it is, it doesn't have ma$$ive bux donors putting on pressure to stop expressions of outrage over the oppression of Palestinians -- though they can put the pressure on the state and city officials regarding funding.  But these ilks have been working for ages to rid the state of the CUNY system already. ]

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Zorral

[Martell Spy]

Appeals court maintains most of Trump gag order in federal election subversion case

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/08/politics/federal-appeals-courts/index.html

Quote

 

An appeals court has largely upheld the gag order against former President Donald Trump in the federal election subversion case, saying he can be barred from talking about witnesses as well as prosecutors, the court staff and their family members.

But the court said the gag order does not apply to comments made about special counsel Jack Smith, a change from the original gag order.

The decision against Trump is a striking admonishment for an ex-president facing an upcoming criminal trial, but also makes clear Trump is still allowed to criticize President Joe Biden and the Justice Department and to argue the prosecution “is politically motivated or that he is innocent of the charges against him.”

The three appeals court judges who issued Friday’s ruling — Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Bradley Garcia, all Democratic appointees — found Trump’s words on the public stage could undermine the fairness of a jury trial, sway or intimidate witnesses and imperil court staff. The court said that justifies limiting Trump’s speech, even while he campaigns to return to the presidency.

It is the second time in recent weeks that an appeals court has reinstated limits on what Trump can say publicly. Trump’s also under a gag order in New York barring him from attacking court staff in a civil fraud trial against him and his business there. Trump is set to testify in that case on Monday.

It is still possible for Trump to appeal the federal gag order all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

 

[Zorral]

Kansas City Star -- Missouri Republicans propose bills to allow murder charges for people who get abortions

https://nordot.app/1105932165330468921

Quote

 

Missouri Republican lawmakers are pushing a pair of bills that would allow for women to be charged with murder for getting an abortion in the state.

The pieces of legislation would give fetuses the same rights as human beings, which would allow for criminal charges to be filed against anyone who gets an abortion, helps someone get an abortion or provides abortion care in the state, which implemented a near-total ban on the procedure after last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling. ....

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Can't. Make. This. Shit. Up.

 

Wishful thinking by Beau that the Republicans will come out and admit Jan 6 was all Trump supporters attempting to overthrow the democratic process. At best this will fracture the Republican party to a right-wing loony party and a right-wing not loony party. Who gets to keep the Republican name is anyone's guess.

[kissdbyfire]

25 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Wishful thinking by Beau that the Republicans will come out and admit Jan 6 was all Trump supporters attempting to overthrow the democratic process. 

I disagree here. He doesn’t say they “will” do it, he says they “will have to”, and there’s a difference imo. The former is almost a prediction, that X is going to happen whereas the latter is more something that must happen “at some point” (his words). And he’s right, at some point they will absolutely have to face up to a lot of things, not just Jan 6. Now, when will that happen? Who can say, but given the elected reps they have right now we can assume it won’t be anytime soon. 

25 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

At best this will fracture the Republican party to a right-wing loony party and a right-wing not loony party. Who gets to keep the Republican name is anyone's guess.

Nah, they’re all mostly either total nutters or proud christofascists, then there’s the nutters who are proud christofascists, and then a handful who are not crazy nor christofascists but go along with them out of fear and/or self-interest. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[LongRider]

42 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

At best this will fracture the Republican party to a right-wing loony party and a right-wing not loony party.

I hope R's will fracture and disintegrate, but I don't see any non loony R party.  They are just too far gone and too high on their own supply of bullshit. 

[ThinkerX]

As I see it, the current republican party is a dangerously unstable alliance of groups that would normally be at each other's throats, with Trump being the only uniting factor. Something happens to Trump; this alliance comes apart. A Christian Nationalist type attached to plutocrats and with a message that can reach towards the center a bit *night* be able to hold it together, but it still remains a shaky alliance. (Witness the fiasco in the House).

 

There is also the demographic issue: much of the conservative base is old white people, and they are dropping dead at an accelerating rate. 

 

[Jaxom 1974]

"There is no Republican Party, only Zuul..."

[Bironic]

Chair of the Florida Republican Party accused of rape, uses the "Trump did it as well" defense

Will this have an effect on the Florida elections in 2024?