The Political Junkie Thread

[CameronBornAndBred]

Is there a consensus on how many seats Dems need to flip to be able to get things done on these issues, and will voters find that argument convincing with respect to the fact that they are seemingly unable to do anything now?

In the immortal SNL words of Jesse Jackson...

It's not about "flipping", especially since Congress is Dem controlled now. It's about retaining, and that ain't gonna happen. Even with today.

[dudog]

Phredd3, the topic of the day is abortion.

Sorry, the leaked opinion was so obviously genuine, I did not regard that publication as news, devastating as it was. As far as I was concerned, the news event was the hearings. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

It's all about the Senate. So they would have to hold the House. If Collins and Murkowski would vote the way they talk (I'm pretty sure Murkowski would, Collins is an idiot) they would need to flip 8. I doubt that can happen this cycle, we'll see if this issue has legs (and I believe it will, once Ds can exhibit raped 13-year-olds being forced to have babies).

I hear Collins is "concerned".

I also assume the Supreme Court will now give rapists parental rights. Because somebody is going to sue for them, it's inevitable.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but was the NY gun ruling basically saying that states can't make up their own rules but the abortion ruling saying that it is up to the states to make their own rules?

There are so many things I want to say but I will not put them in writing for fear that the gestapo gets me when the Republicans regain power.

Dems need to get angry and stop playing nice. Stop all of the marching and memes and Facebook posts and Op/Eds and do something (says the guy who is posting on the internet and not doing much).

[acymetric]

Is there a consensus on how many seats Dems need to flip to be able to get things done on these issues, and will voters find that argument convincing with respect to the fact that they are seemingly unable to do anything now?

In the immortal SNL words of Jesse Jackson...
The_Question_Is_Moot.jpg

It's not about "flipping", especially since Congress is Dem controlled now. It's about retaining, and that ain't gonna happen. Even with today.

If simply retaining existing seats were enough we wouldn't have to wait until after the election for action.

Edit: To clarify, I meant flip seats to gain a stronger majority, I know the Dems already have control

[dudog]

Oops, post above should have been replying to acymetric. I had a good business day and this news has ruined it so I'm especially hot.

[OPK]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but was the NY gun ruling basically saying that states can't make up their own rules but the abortion ruling saying that it is up to the states to make their own rules?

There are so many things I want to say but I will not put them in writing for fear that the gestapo gets me when the Republicans regain power.

Dems need to get angry and stop playing nice. Stop all of the marching and memes and Facebook posts and Op/Eds and do something (says the guy who is posting on the internet and not doing much).

Not defending either decision but they can be harmonized.

The NY gun case is based on the Second Amendment which expressly prohibits the abridging of the right to bear arms. The court held that a state cannot put a subjective “prove you need it” requirement on a concealed weapon permit if they have met the licensing requirement of the state to own a gun. I think it is narrower than the press is reporting but still a very significant ruling. But the bottom line is that there is an express Constitutional right at stake.

The abortion case decision by contrast is based on the lack of an express right in the Constitution. The court held that the decisions that implied such a right into the Constitution was incorrect. I think, taken to its logical conclusion, this same result could be justified to reinstate laws banning contraception (Griswald v. CT), same-sex partnerships, interracial marriage (Virginia v. Loving), the right to assisted suicide, and other cases relying on implied Constitutional rights (known as “substantive due process” rights or personal rights “within the penumbra” of rights Protected by Fourteenth Amendment). This is a real Pandora’s Box of potential unintended consequences (although Justice Thomas said he intends some of this result).

I’m not arguing with anyone who wants to say that they are both results-driven outcomes. But there is a cogent Constitutional textual difference between the two cases.

Again, not defending either.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but was the NY gun ruling basically saying that states can't make up their own rules but the abortion ruling saying that it is up to the states to make their own rules?

There are so many things I want to say but I will not put them in writing for fear that the gestapo gets me when the Republicans regain power.

Dems need to get angry and stop playing nice. Stop all of the marching and memes and Facebook posts and Op/Eds and do something (says the guy who is posting on the internet and not doing much).

Not defending either decision but they can be harmonized.

The NY gun case is based on the Second Amendment which expressly prohibits the abridging of the right to bear arms. The court held that a state cannot put a subjective “prove you need it” requirement on a concealed weapon permit if they have met the licensing requirement of the state to own a gun. I think it is narrower than the press is reporting but still a very significant ruling. But the bottom line is that there is an express Constitutional right at stake.

The abortion case decision by contrast is based on the lack of an express right in the Constitution. The court held that the decisions that implied such a right into the Constitution was incorrect. I think, taken to its logical conclusion, this same result could be justified to reinstate laws banning contraception (Griswald v. CT), same-sex partnerships, interracial marriage (Virginia v. Loving), the right to assisted suicide, and other cases relying on implied Constitutional rights (known as “substantive due process” rights or personal rights “within the penumbra” of rights Protected by Fourteenth Amendment). This is a real Pandora’s Box of potential unintended consequences (although Justice Thomas said he intends some of this result).

I’m not arguing with anyone who wants to say that they are both results-driven outcomes. But there is a cogent Constitutional textual difference between the two cases.

Again, not defending either.

Well stated. You are correct (as usual). I'm just kind of venting as they tend to be very inconsistent hypocrites, but this was not the best example. I obviously know you are not suggesting this but I love how when fighting for their gun rights based on it being in the constitution, they conveniently ignore the whole "well-regulated" part of the text.

I can't wait to see the convoluted logic Thomas uses to apply this to all of your examples except Loving, which he obviously has a personal interest in.

This has really stolen the thunder of the Trump hearings and ruined my week.

[OPK]

This has really stolen the thunder of the Trump hearings and ruined my week.

Yeah, the happiest man in the world right now lives at Mar-a-Lago.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

This has really stolen the thunder of the Trump hearings and ruined my week.

Yeah, the happiest man in the world right now lives at Mar-a-Lago.

The irony of all of this is I wonder how many abortions he has paid for in his lifetime. I feel like he has an abortion doctor on speed dial.

[dudog]

This has really stolen the thunder of the Trump hearings and ruined my week.

Yeah, the happiest man in the world right now lives at Mar-a-Lago.

Interesting that the committee delayed the final hearings, which were supposed to be next week, to July. Almost as if they knew this was coming out and it was a good time for a break. I know they said it's because of all the new info, but still interesting. To me.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Interesting that the committee delayed the final hearings, which were supposed to be next week, to July. Almost as if they knew this was coming out and it was a good time for a break. I know they said it's because of all the new info, but still interesting. To me.

Good point. I do think there are more legit reasons for the break, and ones that will pay off, but it was good timing.

[ArkieDukie]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but was the NY gun ruling basically saying that states can't make up their own rules but the abortion ruling saying that it is up to the states to make their own rules?

There are so many things I want to say but I will not put them in writing for fear that the gestapo gets me when the Republicans regain power.

Dems need to get angry and stop playing nice. Stop all of the marching and memes and Facebook posts and Op/Eds and do something (says the guy who is posting on the internet and not doing much).

Not defending either decision but they can be harmonized.

The NY gun case is based on the Second Amendment which expressly prohibits the abridging of the right to bear arms. The court held that a state cannot put a subjective “prove you need it” requirement on a concealed weapon permit if they have met the licensing requirement of the state to own a gun. I think it is narrower than the press is reporting but still a very significant ruling. But the bottom line is that there is an express Constitutional right at stake.

The abortion case decision by contrast is based on the lack of an express right in the Constitution. The court held that the decisions that implied such a right into the Constitution was incorrect. I think, taken to its logical conclusion, this same result could be justified to reinstate laws banning contraception (Griswald v. CT), same-sex partnerships, interracial marriage (Virginia v. Loving), the right to assisted suicide, and other cases relying on implied Constitutional rights (known as “substantive due process” rights or personal rights “within the penumbra” of rights Protected by Fourteenth Amendment). This is a real Pandora’s Box of potential unintended consequences (although Justice Thomas said he intends some of this result).

I’m not arguing with anyone who wants to say that they are both results-driven outcomes. But there is a cogent Constitutional textual difference between the two cases.

Again, not defending either.

Extremely helpful. Thanks for the great explanation.

This ruling has me feeling sick to my stomach, for all the reasons you stated. The implications are staggering. Ultra-conservative, ignorant legislatures now have free reign to pass a variety of restrictive laws, and Justice Thomas sounds as though he is totally supportive of it.

I heard a story on NPR in which the discussion centered around potential economic impacts for states with extremely restrictive laws. Companies are concerned that they will have trouble recruiting talented individuals to live and work in certain states, and I could totally see that happening. On top of that, people who can do so will likely vote with their feet. As a result, this ruling could, potentially, cause an exodus of businesses and people from states that pass extremely restrictive laws. Further, it could impact future growth. Companies could, and should, think long and hard about locating in states that start limiting rights, as this will negatively impact their ability to attract talented individuals. No way in hell would I move to TX, for instance. Unfortunately, MO is not much better. I know my niece and her husband are considering where they would live if they move back to the states, and I’m sure they are not alone. This is where we need to rock the vote and get rid of the folks who see The Handmaid’s Tale as an ideal society.

[Phredd3]

OK, so let's assume that somehow, some way, the Dems break through the Senate filibuster and pass a national abortion rights bill. Does the current Supreme Court let that law stand, or do they strike it down as beyond the power of the federal government?

[OPK]

OK, so let's assume that somehow, some way, the Dems break through the Senate filibuster and pass a national abortion rights bill. Does the current Supreme Court let that law stand, or do they strike it down as beyond the power of the federal government?

This is actually about to be tested I think — Biden is taking the position that the “morning after” pill has been approved by the FDA and is considering a rule to prohibit states from blocking its sale.

The legal answer is: it depends on the scope of the Commerce Clause. The practical answer is: who knows.

[dudog]

OK, so let's assume that somehow, some way, the Dems break through the Senate filibuster and pass a national abortion rights bill. Does the current Supreme Court let that law stand, or do they strike it down as beyond the power of the federal government?

This is actually about to be tested I think — Biden is taking the position that the “morning after” pill has been approved by the FDA and is considering a rule to prohibit states from blocking its sale.

The legal answer is: it depends on the scope of the Commerce Clause. The practical answer is: who knows.

I knows. These punks will strike it down. They'll twist the law however they want, ignore language they don't want to see (as CNC noted, what is unclear about "well-regulated militia"?), invent meaning they want to impose. I personally saw how corrupt the judges in this country are 20 years ago, now the rest of the country gets to join in the fun.

[Phredd3]

OK, so let's assume that somehow, some way, the Dems break through the Senate filibuster and pass a national abortion rights bill. Does the current Supreme Court let that law stand, or do they strike it down as beyond the power of the federal government?

This is actually about to be tested I think — Biden is taking the position that the “morning after” pill has been approved by the FDA and is considering a rule to prohibit states from blocking its sale.

The legal answer is: it depends on the scope of the Commerce Clause. The practical answer is: who knows.

I had not heard that. Just to be clear, though, "Plan B" (aka the "morning after" pill) is technically a method of contraception, not abortion. There is a separate drug (mifepristone) used for pharmaceutically-induced abortions, and that's the one I now read Biden is contemplating securing. That would be a pretty direct test of the Commerce Clause, certainly. Apparently Merrick Garland has already released a statement saying, in part, "States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy." That's not quite a Constitutional argument, but it's getting close. I'll be following this new theater of battle in the abortion war with interest.

[dudog]

Thought this was a good article to share considering some of the comments around here lately:

"A step-by-step guide for moving to Canada and becoming a citizen there"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/a ... li=BBnb7Kz

Too cold for me. I'm a wimp.

[OPK]

OK, so let's assume that somehow, some way, the Dems break through the Senate filibuster and pass a national abortion rights bill. Does the current Supreme Court let that law stand, or do they strike it down as beyond the power of the federal government?

This is actually about to be tested I think — Biden is taking the position that the “morning after” pill has been approved by the FDA and is considering a rule to prohibit states from blocking its sale.

The legal answer is: it depends on the scope of the Commerce Clause. The practical answer is: who knows.

I had not heard that. Just to be clear, though, "Plan B" (aka the "morning after" pill) is technically a method of contraception, not abortion. There is a separate drug (mifepristone) used for pharmaceutically-induced abortions, and that's the one I now read Biden is contemplating securing. That would be a pretty direct test of the Commerce Clause, certainly. Apparently Merrick Garland has already released a statement saying, in part, "States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy." That's not quite a Constitutional argument, but it's getting close. I'll be following this new theater of battle in the abortion war with interest.

Thanks for the clarification and the additional deets!

[CameronBornAndBred]

Thought this was a good article to share considering some of the comments around here lately:

"A step-by-step guide for moving to Canada and becoming a citizen there"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/a ... li=BBnb7Kz

Too cold for me. I'm a wimp.

I'm allergic to the sun coming up at 3am.

[dudog]

Nothing to add at the moment, just wanted to be the 1,000th post.