The Supremes

[David Dennison 18946]

4 minutes ago, Paper_jam said:

If we get to a point where a state legislature sends electors that pick a candidate who didn't win the election, the people of said state need to burn it all down.

 

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Anyone who would participate in that, from the state legislators to the electors they name, would need to be drawn and quartered.

 

Our system of government is under extreme duress.

[tx 3 putt 77385]

31 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Well, if it's not written in the Constitution . . . 

This simulation sucks.

I’m fucking over it 

[Brisketexan 105310]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

thomas is a man with a dream of tearing down this country and he finally got it. The sooner he’s burning in hell, the better 

You ain't wrong.  And Alito is his partner in crime.

[Js1 85562]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

 

 

Our system of government is under extreme duress.

The grand experiment is over. Democracy failed. Democracy and technological advancements don’t seem compatible.  It requires an engaged, educated voting public.  Thanks to technology and social media, that’s out of the window - stupid and lazy ain’t gonna fix this 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Js1

[David Dennison 18946]

 

[Biff Tannen 45726]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

The grand experiment is over. Democracy failed. Democracy and technological advancements don’t seem compatible.  It requires an engaged, educated voting public.  Thanks to technology and social media, that’s out of the window - stupid and lazy ain’t gonna fix this 

More or less.  But if we had a more educated populace to begin with (again, thanks Rs), maybe we could have handled the transition to social media better.  Oh well, let's burn it down and start over.

[tx 3 putt 77385]

About time for those checks and balances to start kicking in 

[staboner 4984]

that tweet upstream ^ summarizing the entire SCOTUS is just unreal to read. complete one way destruction of norms, precedence, and minority protections in one fucking go. the devil is here and he is us. good. i say get it over faster. 

 

[Surly Bevo 25144]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

First time I’ve ever heard Reagan described as smart. You lost me there. There was a classic sketch on SNL that was only funny because everyone knew he wasn’t smart.

 

Holy shit is that a "younger" Uncle Leo in that sketch who doesn't know what to do with the word processor?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33898]

16 hours ago, David Dennison said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Biden really has become a Jimmy Carter redux.  And not in the way most people mean.

Carter really thought that Watergate was an aberration, and to get back to "normal" we had to dismiss all grudges and kind of consign that chapter of our history in the apocrypha (you know--where the chapters about the North losing the Civil War, the political terrorism around the turn of the 20th Century, and the violent racial reaction of the post-WWI era all live).  That meant commuting the sentences of guys like G. Gordon Liddy and not making sure guys like Robert Bork were disbarred for their actions.

Carter was wrong.  By trying to get back to "normal," he normalized that kind of lawlessness. 

Carter's was a failed presidency.  Biden is going down the very same path. 

***steps on soapbox***

Look, i know shit is fucked right now. There are really smart people here, but pushing bad narratives and opinions furthers nothing. We have to show restraint and wait for facts, like statements from the actual person we're looking to for answers. 

***steps off soapbox***

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Bozo_Casanova 26533]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You ain't wrong.  And Alito is his partner in crime.

Miss me yet?

[Brisketexan 105310]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Miss me yet?

Laughing, crying, and puking at the same time.  That will surely be my MO for the next decade.

[Js1 85562]

28 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

***steps on soapbox***

Look, i know shit is fucked right now. There are really smart people here, but pushing bad narratives and opinions furthers nothing. We have to show restraint and wait for facts, like statements from the actual person we're looking to for answers. 

That doesn't get you clicks when you're clout chasing. 

[Pig Bellmont 8736]

Thomas should not be on the Supreme Court. He’s basically Hannity with a law degree 

[gmr548 16612]

My wife, who is a enviro attorney’s hot take is it’s bad for climate change, but they didn’t chuck Chevron. It prolly means they’ll pick and choose which regs they want to toss in the future through the shadow docket (enviro regs? Unconstitutional!  Safety regs for Airplanes? That’s okay.)

Calvinball.

[yoladu 4094]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

This country fought a civil war over slavery [involuntary relocation] wrapped in the cloak of states' rights. States' rights lost. By even entertaining the independent state legislature doctrine, which would potentially put presidential elections in the hands of gerrymandered state legislatures, the Supreme Court is inching this country ever closer to armed conflict. 

Democrats need to wake the fuck up.

fixed it for ya.

[JBJ 3664]

41 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Chevron's dead.  

But was it ever really alive?

[tchookem 3905]

Anyone who would participate in that, from the state legislators to the electors they name, would need to be drawn and quartered.

You mean like the people that already tried it and have had nothing happen to them?

[wildcat09 29378]

32 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

***steps on soapbox***

Look, i know shit is fucked right now. There are really smart people here, but pushing bad narratives and opinions furthers nothing. We have to show restraint and wait for facts, like statements from the actual person we're looking to for answers. 

***steps off soapbox***

 

That's not enough. Biden has tweeted out halfhearted support, including support for a filibuster carveout, for voting rights too and just gave up on it. After nearly two full months to prepare for Roe being overturned (really, he should've been preparing his entire presidency), this is all we've gotten from the administration and it comes nearly a full fucking week late. Yes, there are a lot of constraints and yes, Sinema and Manchin are a big problem. Sinema can be bullied, Manchin maybe not, but they should be fucking trying (and no, there's no reason to think they're trying to do so in private). But even with all the constraints, there's still things the administration can be doing right now to lessen the immediate harm of the decision. Elie Mystal has written about some options:

Quote

Make everything free: As I read the Hyde Amendment, it does not prevent the federal government from providing space for family planning “consultations” given by doctors who are leasing the space out of their own pockets. It does not prevent private citizens from funding or reimbursing those doctors for their “consultation” services through private means. Because medical privileges are generally governed by state law, not federal law, it might require different executive actions to allow doctors to perform actual medical procedures in those leased federal buildings, but that has nothing to do with the Hyde Amendment. Moreover, the amendment would not prevent these privately funded doctors from providing “vacations” for patients to states that do allow the necessary medical procedures to be performed. I’d chip in money to help every expectant mother visit New York until fetal viability, just because it’s so nice here.

Make the military do it: For better or worse Biden’s power as commander in chief is at its apex. The Hyde Amendment is not what prevents military doctors, or doctors deputized into military service, from performing abortion services. Instead, there are a number of other funding restrictions, passed annually as part of the defense budget, as well as some restrictions made up by President Ronald Reagan and carried forward, that make getting an abortion while an active duty member of the military very hard. It’s even hard for service members to use their own money to seek legal abortion services from nonmilitary doctors. However, Biden is the commander in chief. He should have already been using his power to make abortions easier to obtain in the military, and must do so now. If the president begins to order military doctors to provide health care, there is little that funding riders could do to stop him. If the president orders the military to protect, on their bases, abortion providers giving out services for free, or to provide safe passage to women seeking abortions in other states, there is nothing congressional funders could do to stop him.

Repeal the Hyde Amendment: Republicans would challenge these actions, and their enforcement goons on the Supreme Court who are eager to force people to carry pregnancies to term would surely back them up. But, as I keep saying, Hyde is merely a budgetary amendment. Biden submitted a 2022 budget that didn’t include the Hyde Amendment, but caved. The 2023 budget proposal also doesn’t have a Hyde Amendment attached. If Biden, a lifelong supporter of the Hyde Amendment until he ran for president a third time, thinks the Hyde Amendment is so powerful that it constrains even basic executive or military actions, then maybe he could not fold like a chair when it comes up next time around? Biden could act now, get challenged in court, and basically have those challenges rendered moot by repealing the thing.

Ignore the Hyde Amendment: I have, in good faith, offered credible reasons for why the Hyde Amendment shouldn’t apply to a number of executive actions to provide abortion services so long as a Democrat is in the White House. However, another entirely rational play is simply to ignore the amendment. It’s what Republicans would do. Indeed, the last time a Republican president couldn’t get money from Congress to do something Congress explicitly would not fund, he just declared a national emergency and stole the money from the military budget. There’s no reason Biden couldn’t do that: “The Supreme Court’s errant ruling has created a national emergency and humanitarian crisis. Pregnant people will not be turned into mere incubators on my watch. I hereby create a national guard of doctors, and will deploy them into the various states to provide health care.”

There are probably some other small things that can be done on the margins to help people if they actually bothered to think about what their options are. But what's clear is they fucking haven't, and that's inexcusable. Yes, some people shouting at Dem leadership for more are idiots who don't understand the roadblocks in place. But that's no excuse for inaction. You guys get pissed off about a lack of preparation when its Texas football, you should get at least as mad when it's Roe or American democracy itself at stake.

I'm sick and fucking tired of the lack of preparation and the lack of anything resembling a plan from this geriatric bunch of idiots stuck in the 1980s who somehow still have no understanding of the most basic elements of effective politics.  "JUST VOTE AND DON'T FORGET TO GIVE ME MONEY!" isn't a winning political message and never has been. Whom are people supposed to vote for? What will they do if people vote for them? These are extraordinarily basic fucking questions that are perfectly reasonable for voters to have. And too many fucking Dems, apparently including Democratic leadership, think it's outrageous that anyone dare ask them. 

[Dahobbs 17679]

3 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

My wife, who is a enviro attorney’s hot take is it’s bad for climate change, but they didn’t chuck Chevron. It prolly means they’ll pick and choose which regs they want to toss in the future through the shadow docket (enviro regs? Unconstitutional!  Safety regs for Airplanes? That’s okay.)

To be accurate, based on this decision, they'd chunk regs as beyond the authority clearly delegated by Congress. We haven't gotten to declaring such regulations unconstitutional (yet). 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33898]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That's not enough. Biden has tweeted out halfhearted support, including support for a filibuster carveout, for voting rights too and just gave up on it. After nearly two full months to prepare for Roe being overturned (really, he should've been preparing his entire presidency), this is all we've gotten from the administration and it comes nearly a full fucking week late. Yes, there are a lot of constraints and yes, Sinema and Manchin are a big problem. Sinema can be bullied, Manchin maybe not, but they should be fucking trying (and no, there's no reason to think they're trying to do so in private). But even with all the constraints, there's still things the administration can be doing right now to lessen the immediate harm of the decision. Elie Mystal has written about some options:

There are probably some other small things that can be done on the margins to help people if they actually bothered to think about what their options are. But what's clear is they fucking haven't, and that's inexcusable. Yes, some people shouting at Dem leadership for more are idiots who don't understand the roadblocks in place. But that's no excuse for inaction. You guys get pissed off about a lack of preparation when its Texas football, you should get at least as mad when it's Roe or American democracy itself at stake.

I'm sick and fucking tired of the lack of preparation and the lack of anything resembling a plan from this geriatric bunch of idiots stuck in the 1980s who somehow still have no understanding of the most basic elements of effective politics.  "JUST VOTE AND DON'T FORGET TO GIVE ME MONEY!" isn't a winning political message and never has been. Whom are people supposed to vote for? What will they do if people vote for them? These are extraordinarily basic fucking questions that are perfectly reasonable for voters to have. And too many fucking Dems, apparently including Democratic leadership, think it's outrageous that anyone dare ask them. 

No shit it's not enough. They have to act on it. Duh. But it's on congress to act, but him. He says he intends to codify if it's put on his desk. What more do you want from him?

[Surly Bevo 25144]

5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

No shit it's not enough. They have to act on it. Duh. But it's on congress to act, but him. He says he intends to codify if it's put on his desk. What more do you want from him?

Something along these lines...

Edited June 30, 2022 by Surly Bevo

[Js1 85562]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

No shit it's not enough. They have to act on it. Duh. But it's on congress to act, but him. He says he intends to codify if it's put on his desk. What more do you want from him?

What he wants does not supersede that M/S didn’t overturn the filibuster. No matter how much he wants, those 2 are stopping it. He can’t do anything more than press them or see what it would take.  He’s not a dictator. 

[wildcat09 29378]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

No shit it's not enough. They have to act on it. Duh. But it's on congress to act, but him. He says he intends to codify if it's put on his desk. What more do you want from him?

I want clear and consistent messaging about the extreme harms that overturning Roe will cause to women and about what the Republicans plan to do next (mass abortion surveillance and a national abortion ban). I want clear and consistent messaging about why we need to codify abortion protections into law, but also about why that won't be good enough for the current Court. I want clear and consistent messaging about what the current impediments are (the filibuster and the fact that two Democratic senators don't support repealing it), what we need in November to overcome that (the house and at least two more Democratic senators, and public pressure to get rid of the filibuster), and a promise to codify Roe (and the voting rights shit they've surrendered on) if they get what they need. And I want clear and consistent messaging attacking the Court for all of its awful decisions and explaining the need to expand the Court if they don't stand the fuck down.  

I'm asking for some basic fucking political leadership. I'm asking that he do what his voters elected to do and what is a fundamental part of the fucking job. The presidency isn't just a pen. There isn't a Republican voter in the fucking country who would ever utter the phrase "what more do you want from him?" about any of their officials. We need to match that intensity or we're all fucking dead.

[wildcat09 29378]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

What he wants does not supersede that M/S didn’t overturn the filibuster. No matter how much he wants, those 2 are stopping it. He can’t do anything more than press them or see what it would take.  He’s not a dictator. 

There are a dozen ways to bully Sinema. The President wields enormous influence within the party infrastructure. Does she want any primary funding in 2022? Does she want every Democrat to endorse her primary opponent? Does she want to be denied every possible lobbying gig with any group connected to the Democratic establishment? Etc. Pull some Hillary DNC shit on her. If she doesn't fold, make good on your threats.

Manchin is a different story, because he's just genuinely a corrupt moron who finds himself in a unique position and is literally irreplaceable. Though I'd still try privately threatening whatever public funds WV gets right now if Sinema caved and he was the last roadblock. 

[Nivek 16982]

Extremely hard. 
Two Options
1. Legislature
   - Codify Roe v Wade. That would take Dems winning a ton more senate seats, and those people willing to break Filibuster rule
 - Expand SCOTUS - again, need more senate seats
2. SCOTUS
   - have 3 republican justices die while Democrat is president (and have control of house so Mitch doesn't sabotage appointments)
Even then, the damage is already done. Having SCOTUS ignore precedence, statutes, etc. It's already ruined the legitimacy of the court. 

Executive order that supreme court has gone rogue and is a threat to the nation and its stability and safety. Members must be all reconfirmed and demonstrate their oath to the upholding of the law in consistency with the constitution and not some preconceived ideology. All rulings in the past 5 years are subject to reaffirmed review.

Any members confirmed by, appointed by, or related to terrorists or groups which participated in terroristic activities are excluded from serving.

/Signed President Nivek

[lemonlime 5503]

The dems should be pounding the table that Thomas must resign. They should have long ago subpoenaed Gianni about her role on 1-6 bad called on Clarence to testify about why he was still ruling on cases about 1-6. Hell, he should have been impeached the second that info came out. I get that the debate wouldn’t convict. But the dems should be yelling and screaming and holding these corrupt assholes feet to the fire. Make them Testify under oath about their corruption.

[Goofyboy 3296]

Biden should also go after Collins and remind her constantly that Kav and ACB lied to her.

[lemonlime 5503]

And apologies for the typos in this and my prior post. But gd autocorrect on my stupid fucking phone. But why aren’t they asking Kennedy about the pressure (blackmail?) for his resignation. Completing the fbi investigation on Kav that trump quashed and impeaching him. Possibly impeaching gorsuch for the stollen seat.

The GQP is still screaming nonsense about Hunter Biden and the dems won’t even investigate known corruption that’s real.

[Js1 85562]

21 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

The dems should be pounding the table that Thomas must resign. They should have long ago subpoenaed Gianni about her role on 1-6 bad called on Clarence to testify about why he was still ruling on cases about 1-6. Hell, he should have been impeached the second that info came out. I get that the debate wouldn’t convict. But the dems should be yelling and screaming and holding these corrupt assholes feet to the fire. Make them Testify under oath about their corruption.

Bc Thomas is soooo going to listen. And impeached but not removed means nothing. Republicans won’t get on board. THEY. DO. NOT. CARE. 

[Ghost of LL 15539]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

***steps on soapbox***

Look, i know shit is fucked right now. There are really smart people here, but pushing bad narratives and opinions furthers nothing. We have to show restraint and wait for facts, like statements from the actual person we're looking to for answers. 

***steps off soapbox***

 

And that would be fine if (1) he were actually going to expend some political capital to get that done, (2) it would be constitutional, and (3) Dobbs were an abortion opinion.  But none of those things are the case.

1) Biden is just sending out a tweet to try to mollify his base.  But is he actually going to put in the work necessary to pass that legislation?  Signs point to NO.

As LF68 points out, there are things Biden can do now that don't require congressional approval.  He is doing none of them.

2) Even if it were passed, it would be immediately challenged.  And those would probably be good challenges.  I'm not at all sure what Congress's authority would be to pass that legislation.

3) Dobbs isn't an abortion case.  It's a due-process and privacy case.  It has broad implications far beyond abortion.  You want to fix what the Court did in Dobbs, there's only one solution: pack the Court.

But Biden won't even suggest that.  Which tells you he's not serious about even this half-measure.

[Biff Tannen 45726]

10 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Possibly impeaching gorsuch for the stollen seat.

Admit it, this one was on purpose.

[TexEx15 17568]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

About time for those checks and balances to start kicking in 

About that…

 

[lemonlime 5503]

Bc Thomas is soooo going to listen. And impeached but not removed means nothing. Republicans won’t get on board. THEY. DO. NOT. CARE. 

Of course republicans won’t care. But why are dems letting them set the narrative. Make ginni testify under oath or take the 5th

[washparkhorn 9939]

“The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get out-of-text-free cards.”

- Kagan dissent 

[yoladu 4094]

18 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

“The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get out-of-text-free cards.”

- Kagan dissent 

[Hookah Horns 3083]

On 6/26/2022 at 4:49 PM, Pods said:

Plenty of BLM land out west to give options for AZ, WY, MT, ID, UT. Not much BLM land in the mid-west, or east, but there is sufficient USFS land to get good geographic coverage and limit driving time of patients. 

Doit.gif

 

 

State law controls on BLM property, per BLM regulations. I reckon that could be changed though. 

[Foosters 17885]

49 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

About that…

 

That's all she wrote 

[chainsaw 9873]

9 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

State law controls on BLM property, per BLM regulations. I reckon that could be changed though. 

Biden teams up with BLM to impose radical Sharia abortions

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

The grand experiment is over. Democracy failed.

I think this is half right. Democracy never truly existed for the United States. Moves were made towards it but the original designers of the experiment did not create a democracy where all people were actually free. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33898]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think this is half right. Democracy never truly existed for the United States. Moves were made towards it but the original designers of the experiment did not create a democracy where all people were actually free. 

shit, not even most people

[chainsaw 9873]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think this is half right. Democracy never truly existed for the United States. Moves were made towards it but the original designers of the experiment did not create a democracy where all people were actually free. 

People want a permanent underclass. There was always going to be a breaking point

[Pods 7586]

18 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

State law controls on BLM property, per BLM regulations. I reckon that could be changed though. 

I've never had a single interaction with a state official for any of our BLM permits. All employees we interact with, all documents we sign, all laws we agree to follow, and all permits we file are federal. No mention of the state, or any state laws in the process at all that I can recall. It is federal land and they make all the decisions. 

My understanding is that the BLM allows state laws to be enforced on BLM land, but this is a courtesy they extend and there is nothing requiring them to do so. The Constitution pretty clearly gives the authority to regulate BLM land to the feds, not the states. 

Quote

ArtIV.S3.C2.1.1 Property Clause

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

 

[4th&Five 41586]

 

[Hookah Horns 3083]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

The grand experiment is over. Democracy failed. Democracy and technological advancements don’t seem compatible.  It requires an engaged, educated voting public.  Thanks to technology and social media, that’s out of the window - stupid and lazy ain’t gonna fix this 

In my mind, our form of government has been doomed ever since our two-party, first past the post election system became entrenched. Murdoch, internet trash like facebook and assorted other evil bastards merely sped it along.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

In theory, every form of government is doomed at inception.

[Hookah Horns 3083]

10 minutes ago, Pods said:

I've never had a single interaction with a state official for any of our BLM permits. All employees we interact with, all documents we sign, all laws we agree to follow, and all permits we file are federal. No mention of the state, or any state laws in the process at all that I can recall. It is federal land and they make all the decisions. 

My understanding is that the BLM allows state laws to be enforced on BLM land, but this is a courtesy they extend and there is nothing requiring them to do so. The Constitution pretty clearly gives the authority to regulate BLM land to the feds, not the states. 

 

That's correct, BLM makes BLM regulations like the one that extends state and local law to their lands despite the property clause.

[chainsaw 9873]

What about post offices?

[Brisketexan 105310]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

In theory, every form of government is doomed at inception.

We had moderate success at building a system of government that successfully managed human nature -- greed, cruelty, tribalism.  Note that I said "moderate" -- lotsa big Ls to go with any Ws (Civil Rights Act was a W, but it had to overcome Jim Crow, an L).  But I think we've run out the string.  Like most governments.  Our challenge is that we aren't built around a long-standing national identity (e.g., France can have multiple Republics, because in the end, all are French).  We're not any one thing -- the only thing that makes us one is an agreed set of values and order embodied in a document that we're shredding and burning.  So....yeah.

[Biff Tannen 45726]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

the only thing that makes us one is an agreed set of values and order embodied in a document that we're shredding and burning. 

Republicans: