Re: Random Politics
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:36 pm
It's the sixth version of The Swamp. What could possibly go wrong?
http://sportsfrog.net/phpbb/
To Mr. D's point about Kavanaugh, they can be impeached. Just ask Justice Samuel Chase, who was impeached in 1805. Only time it's ever happened, and it'd take an enormous scandal for anyone to attempt to impeach a Justice.
Court expansion and investigations are hardly fit the "immediate" action that your tweeter is imploring the dems to take. I'm legitimately curious what powers he thinks the Dems have here. And if they did have those powers, surely the former ruling party would've used the same to overturn court rulings that they did no like, no?
Neither of those would have any effect on the current situation in Texas.
They could have video of Kavanaugh doing lines of blow off a stripper's ass while counting money and saying into the mic "This was $500,000 given to me by Citibank as a payoff after getting nominated to the court and it was all facilitated through Donald J. Trump" and not a single Republican in the Senate (except maybe Romney!) would vote to impeach him.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:07 pmNeither of those would have any effect on the current situation in Texas.
I'd love to see an investigation of Kavanaugh. But that wouldn't do anything either, since you need 67 votes in the Senate to remove him.
This ship has sailed for this cycle. What we have to hope for is in '22 the Ds put up a quality candidate in PA (open seat) and in WI (to knock off Ron Johnson) and win, b/c Warnock isn't taking GA since black people won't be allowed to vote. At that point, it's 52 to 48, Ds, and Manchin and Sinema won't matter.
If the Dems take PA and WI but lose one of the GA seats, and nothing else changes, doesn't that make it 51-49?L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:20 pmThis ship has sailed for this cycle. What we have to hope for is in '22 the Ds put up a quality candidate in PA (open seat) and in WI (to knock off Ron Johnson) and win, b/c Warnock isn't taking GA since black people won't be allowed to vote. At that point, it's 52 to 48, Ds, and Manchin and Sinema won't matter.
We've been saying shit like this for fucking years and look where we are. Roe v. Wade is basically being overturned without a peep and voting rights are being trampled on by numerous large states. Good luck continuing this method.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:07 pmNeither of those would have any effect on the current situation in Texas.
Until California flips ;)L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:20 pmThis ship has sailed for this cycle. What we have to hope for is in '22 the Ds put up a quality candidate in PA (open seat) and in WI (to knock off Ron Johnson) and win, b/c Warnock isn't taking GA since black people won't be allowed to vote. At that point, it's 52 to 48, Ds, and Manchin and Sinema won't matter.
It's a hard analogy to make, because if there were sexual assault issues and other red flags, the Dems would have insisted on the withdrawal of the nomination, and they would have put someone else in his place.mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm Granted I know anyone resembling far left would never be appointed by a Dem, but pretend with me for a second: If a far left judge were appointed to SCOTUS and barely confirmed due to full Republican opposition and some Dem opposition and he was rumored to have a history of sexual assault and there were highly suspicious financial transactions leading up to his nomination, do you think Republicans would let him sit if they were in full power because "ah well those are the rules and norms as written now and followed for a long time"?
It might seem pedantic, but it's not overturned by a state law. The Supreme Court could have acted on an emergency basis to put a stay on the law, but that's very rare. A state can pass an Unconstitutional law, and it will stand until it's challenged in court. It's scary to have to trust the current shitbags in the Court, but refusing to act on the emergency basis doesn't signal what they will do when a case comes before them. What really scares me about the current Court, is their willingness to completely ignore past decisions and change the law without even making a logical interpretation based on precedence.Giff wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:38 pmWe've been saying shit like this for fucking years and look where we are. Roe v. Wade is basically being overturned without a peep and voting rights are being trampled on by numerous large states. Good luck continuing this method.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:07 pmNeither of those would have any effect on the current situation in Texas.
And even worse, there's no one for NARAL or the ACLU to sue to stop enforcement of the law. A normal abortion restriction law would either declare certain abortions to be crimes or declare them to be improper medical procedures, and the pro-choice groups could sue state officials to enjoin enforcement. In that case, federal courts always grant stays until the issue is resolved.The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:05 pmIt might seem pedantic, but it's not overturned by a state law. The Supreme Court could have acted on an emergency basis to put a stay on the law, but that's very rare. A state can pass an Unconstitutional law, and it will stand until it's challenged in court. It's scary to have to trust the current shitbags in the Court, but refusing to act on the emergency basis doesn't signal what they will do when a case comes before them. What really scares me about the current Court, is their willingness to completely ignore past decisions and change the law without even making a logical interpretation based on precedence.Giff wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:38 pmWe've been saying shit like this for fucking years and look where we are. Roe v. Wade is basically being overturned without a peep and voting rights are being trampled on by numerous large states. Good luck continuing this method.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:07 pmNeither of those would have any effect on the current situation in Texas.
So the answer in this scenario is to let a sexual predator and a (financial) criminal continue to sit on the bench because he's a liberal?mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm Granted I know anyone resembling far left would never be appointed by a Dem, but pretend with me for a second: If a far left judge were appointed to SCOTUS and barely confirmed due to full Republican opposition and some Dem opposition and he was rumored to have a history of sexual assault and there were highly suspicious financial transactions leading up to his nomination, do you think Republicans would let him sit if they were in full power because "ah well those are the rules and norms as written now and followed for a long time"?
I think he was positing a tongue in cheek scenario that didn’t require a response.brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:33 pmSo the answer in this scenario is to let a sexual predator and a (financial) criminal continue to sit on the bench because he's a liberal?mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm Granted I know anyone resembling far left would never be appointed by a Dem, but pretend with me for a second: If a far left judge were appointed to SCOTUS and barely confirmed due to full Republican opposition and some Dem opposition and he was rumored to have a history of sexual assault and there were highly suspicious financial transactions leading up to his nomination, do you think Republicans would let him sit if they were in full power because "ah well those are the rules and norms as written now and followed for a long time"?
I wouldn't want to live in that country either. I'd probably really rather the fascists take over than make that kind of a deal with myself. Could just be me though.
It's a pretty fucking dumb one though because:EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:47 pmI think he was positing a tongue in cheek scenario that didn’t require a response.brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:33 pmSo the answer in this scenario is to let a sexual predator and a (financial) criminal continue to sit on the bench because he's a liberal?mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm Granted I know anyone resembling far left would never be appointed by a Dem, but pretend with me for a second: If a far left judge were appointed to SCOTUS and barely confirmed due to full Republican opposition and some Dem opposition and he was rumored to have a history of sexual assault and there were highly suspicious financial transactions leading up to his nomination, do you think Republicans would let him sit if they were in full power because "ah well those are the rules and norms as written now and followed for a long time"?
I wouldn't want to live in that country either. I'd probably really rather the fascists take over than make that kind of a deal with myself. Could just be me though.
I mean, we have a political party engaging the dimwitted among us to seek alternative medicines rather than getting vaccinations, and you have a fully compliant, right-wing media conglomeration that's in on the gaslighting. The other day when Ted Cruz posted (incorrectly) that the former Bucs owner took out a full page ad in the WSJ? That wasn't a mistake. It's part of the gaslighting. So it doesn't fucking matter, because the GOP doesn't give a fuck about you or me, and the Democrats are more concerned with their hair shirts and running guys like Al Franken the fuck off the political map.brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:53 pmIt's a pretty fucking dumb one though because:EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:47 pmI think he was positing a tongue in cheek scenario that didn’t require a response.brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:33 pmSo the answer in this scenario is to let a sexual predator and a (financial) criminal continue to sit on the bench because he's a liberal?mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm Granted I know anyone resembling far left would never be appointed by a Dem, but pretend with me for a second: If a far left judge were appointed to SCOTUS and barely confirmed due to full Republican opposition and some Dem opposition and he was rumored to have a history of sexual assault and there were highly suspicious financial transactions leading up to his nomination, do you think Republicans would let him sit if they were in full power because "ah well those are the rules and norms as written now and followed for a long time"?
I wouldn't want to live in that country either. I'd probably really rather the fascists take over than make that kind of a deal with myself. Could just be me though.
1) No one (I know or even anyone I've seen in Congress) is suggesting that Kavanaugh is somehow above the law or shouldn't be looked into on some level.
2) Even if there's more than just weirdness, but an actual crime undercovered, the Republicans will never vote to remove him and if they somehow did it would only been if there was a Republican president who could appoint a new Republican justice.
3) In my example, I'm not sure enough Democratic senators would vote to convict under a Republican president, but my (easy to have since I'm not a Senator) opinion is that I wouldn't want to be cynical enough to leave a sexual predator on the bench under any circumstance.
I don't hold out much hope. We have friends that own a couple restaurants out on Mallorca (Spain's Balearic Islands)...And we've got an open invitation to come out to help out.
Mallorca is awesome, go for it.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:47 pmI don't hold out much hope. We have friends that own a couple restaurants out on Mallorca (Spain's Balearic Islands)...And we've got an open invitation to come out to help out.
I mean, I'm freakin 50. Too old to be a busboy, but I'd love a third act pouring scotch for European vacationers.
That's fine, but don't come up here planning to pop out a bunch of anchor babies.
We can airlift them out of Texas on army helicopters.
As civilians we don’t presume to judge the personal beliefs or research ambitions of physicists who do advanced research at universities or build our nuclear weapons. We defer to all sorts of specialized domains of knowledge. With all due and real respect to various friends and peers who do important work in the field of law, lawyering is not such a field of knowledge. The suggestion that it is is part and parcel of the same general institutional arrogance of the elite academic legal profession that leads countless law professors to head out on disciplinary safaris into economics, history, psychology and virtually every other domain of knowledge. They actually imagine, risibly, that a JD – a limited and largely technical credential – enables one to launch off on this sort of intellectual tourism as easily as a member of the New York bar might get waived in to try a case in California as a matter of professional courtesy. Both claims are products of the same professional arrogance. And in the case of deference to Court appointees it is an arrogance that menaces democratic and civic life itself.
In that case...
Ha! Actually, I just turned 51 this past August 1st. I guess I just haven't gotten around to changing my internal clock to acknowledge that yet.
It's almost like these guys are completely against abortion.DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:06 pm
Brilliant...
My GF (who does ultrasounds at a high-risk obstetric clinic) and I talked about this law last night. It is a flat out mess, even beyond the 'citizens making reports' aspect. Some examples:
- Most women don't even have an idea they are pregnant at 6 weeks
- A lot of fetal heartbeats aren't detectible, even after 6 weeks, unless doing a vaginal ultrasound
- Most of the severe defects don't show up in a fetus until well after weeks
- IVF treatments will generally implant multiple eggs (up to 5 or 6) in the hope that one will 'take'. This law would require an IVF patient to carry all of those fetuses to term.
- The whole 'no exception for rape/incest' thing.
We also agreed that it really is a law on POOR women. Rich women will just hop on a plane to Albuquerque (New Mexico has very liberal abortion laws) and get it taken care of.EdRomero wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:10 pm It's almost like these guys are completely against abortion.
I hope Ted Cruz's, Abbot's, and every Texas congressman's wife, sister, mistress, and daughters gets reported repeatedly. Actually, there is a rumor about Laura Bush -- can we report abortions from 30 years ago?
This.DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:16 pmWe also agreed that it really is a law on POOR women. Rich women will just hop on a plane to Albuquerque (New Mexico has very liberal abortion laws) and get it taken care of.EdRomero wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:10 pm It's almost like these guys are completely against abortion.
I hope Ted Cruz's, Abbot's, and every Texas congressman's wife, sister, mistress, and daughters gets reported repeatedly. Actually, there is a rumor about Laura Bush -- can we report abortions from 30 years ago?
Without actually reading the law, I'm guessing there is no consequence to baseless claims because they don't want a chilling affect on people bringing claims. Once people start making baseless claims against the sponsors of the Bill, there will be an amendment.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:00 pmThis.DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:16 pmWe also agreed that it really is a law on POOR women. Rich women will just hop on a plane to Albuquerque (New Mexico has very liberal abortion laws) and get it taken care of.EdRomero wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:10 pm It's almost like these guys are completely against abortion.
I hope Ted Cruz's, Abbot's, and every Texas congressman's wife, sister, mistress, and daughters gets reported repeatedly. Actually, there is a rumor about Laura Bush -- can we report abortions from 30 years ago?
Seriously, though, has anyone seen whether there is a consequence for filing baseless lawsuits under this law? (Or a waiver of the filing fee?) Because I'd love to see 1000 lawsuits filed against every member of the Texas legislature that voted for this, accusing each one of having or performing abortions - or both, what the hell.
So I think any one of us could sue anyone in Texas for violating the abortion law, and not be subject to attorney fees. I suppose lawyers who file such lawsuits might be subject to bar discipline for bringing baseless claims. But any non-lawyers should be fine.(i) Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award
costs or attorney's fees under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or
any other rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004,
Government Code, to a defendant in an action brought under this
section.