Biden's presidency

[buddha]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

It will be 5-4, they will loose Roberts but other 5 will uphold Mississippi.

So, how is the vision plan at Brandeis?

 

i think roberts would love to do his usual roberts-ness and tweak the case law without outright overturning it.

gorsuch, alito, and thomas would probably overturn it outright by saying there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution (cause there isnt).

kavanaugh and barrett are the keys.  can the chief persuade them to keep the right to privacy stuff while rolling back what an "undue burden" is?  that will be the key to keeping casey on the books.

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, buddha said:

i think roberts would love to do his usual roberts-ness and tweak the case law without outright overturning it.

gorsuch, alito, and thomas would probably overturn it outright by saying there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution (cause there isnt).

kavanaugh and barrett are the keys.  can the chief persuade them to keep the right to privacy stuff while rolling back what an "undue burden" is?  that will be the key to keeping casey on the books.

yeah - Barrett sure seemed ready to channel her inner Handmaiden. There will be no burdens too undue.

[buddha]

23 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

yeah - Barrett sure seemed ready to channel her inner Handmaiden. There will be no burdens too undue.

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2021/11/17/new-marquette-law-school-poll-finds-nationwide-support-both-for-upholding-abortion-rights-and-for-placing-restrictions-on-abortions/

a lot of handmaidens out there.

interestingly, a slim majority of the country favors not overturning roe (i thought it would be higher), but a plurality believes a ban after 15 weeks is ok.

so not a lot of people have read roe!  lol.  i dont blame them.

would you be fine with a decision that keeps a "right to privacy" and a right to an abortion by says a 15 week ban is not an "undue burden" on a woman seeking an abortion?

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Motor City Sonics]

When does Manchin announce he's switching parties? 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Motor City Sonics

[buddha]

pass manchin's 1.8 trillion plan and call it a day.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

pass manchin's 1.8 trillion plan and call it a day.

The lack of a long game by progressives is stunning. Instead of just taking what Manchin gives them and work to add more Democrats to the senate to dilute Manchin, their just going to take their ball and go home. McConnell has been working on this since the 80's. It takes decades, not months like the progressives want it. 

[buddha]

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

The lack of a long game by progressives is stunning. Instead of just taking what Manchin gives them and work to add more Democrats to the senate to dilute Manchin, their just going to take their ball and go home. McConnell has been working on this since the 80's. It takes decades, not months like the progressives want it. 

on the bright side for democrats, biden has been naming tons of judges.  at a much faster rate than trump.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

The lack of a long game by progressives is stunning. Instead of just taking what Manchin gives them and work to add more Democrats to the senate to dilute Manchin, their just going to take their ball and go home. McConnell has been working on this since the 80's. It takes decades, not months like the progressives want it. 

The amount of denial is what gets me... it always gets framed as being this massive majority that they possess in both houses, and it really isn't. Particularly in the Senate, where, between securing the vote of the median Senator (ie. Manchin) and the possibility that someone like Leahy or Feinstein could keel over, there is no margin for error at all..

It's like the progressives just prefer to pretend that reality doesn't exist. Its real echo chamber stuff.

Edited December 19, 2021 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

pass manchin's 1.8 trillion plan and call it a day.

Yes, but even if they come to a bill that wins his approval, is there any guarantee there are sufficient votes in the House?

Its a real pickle because I'm not sure there are enough reps that will set aside their righteous anger to vote for a bill that can pass this Senate.

Edited December 19, 2021 by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

 

would you be fine with a decision that keeps a "right to privacy" and a right to an abortion by says a 15 week ban is not an "undue burden" on a woman seeking an abortion?

long post alert:

I would quibble with one of your previous posts. I don't think it's hard at all to argue a general right of privacy as the clear implication of the 4th amendment - the logic is certainly as direct as any argument that the 2nd amendment supports personal self-defense arms.

That said,  I agree drawing the line from a generalized right to privacy to a specific right to abortion is more uncertain, which even Roe recognizes with its gestation based regime limitations on the privacy right. So to your question "would I be fine" the answer would be that I would recognize the soundness of legal doctrine that more clearly separated the two but I would still rather leave the responsibility for the unborn with mothers and not the state. Plus as a practical matter, pharmaceutical abortion has made any ban on early stage abortion impossible to enforce and bans on later stage abortion have already proven to produce tragic social results. It's bad practical social policy regardless of the legal framework.

It goes back the problem that we really don't have any idea what life, sentience, or consciousness are even in the adult human form, let alone the developing one. The 'viability' criteria was a convenient kludge in an earlier era, but is obsoleted in an era when we can clone mammals. Each side wants to wrap itself in a convenient absolutism (it's a life! it's a lump of tissue!) when neither can even state what a human being is with respect to themselves. Ask anyone who has seen dementia slowly turn a person that had every aspect of identity and personhood you see in yourself back into a mass of dumb tissue. There is an irrefutable point where the 'person' is simply gone, despite a fully formed and functional (including heart beat) physical body still existing in space. What happened to the person? Was that consciousness just a self-delusion created from complex but fully determinate processes? If it was 'real' what was its nature and does whatever it was still exist somewhere? Can you determine some magic crossover point between such a human existence and the dumb biological process that is all that is left in the end? We get no marker on that long downward slide, neither do we get one on the upward one. We don't get to see a ghostly spectral soul separating from the body and waving goodbye to resolve our uncertainties. In Indian philosophy there is a recognition of the difficulty in finding the actual "I" behind consciousness. In the West we pretty much ignore the issue and instead argue from the error of our chosen absolutes.

Edited December 19, 2021 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

26 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

long post alert:

I would quibble with one of your previous posts. I don't think it's hard at all to argue a general right of privacy as the clear implication of the 4th amendment - the logic is certainly as direct as any argument that the 2nd amendment supports personal self-defense arms.

That said,  I agree drawing the line from a generalized right to privacy to a specific right to abortion is more uncertain, which even Roe recognizes with its gestation based regime limitations on the privacy right. So to your question "would I be fine" the answer would be that I would recognize the soundness of legal doctrine that more clearly separated the two but I would still rather leave the responsibility for the unborn with mothers and not the state. Plus as a practical matter, pharmaceutical abortion has made any ban on early stage abortion impossible to enforce and bans on later stage abortion have already proven to produce tragic social results. It's bad practical social policy regardless of the legal framework.

It goes back the problem that we really don't have any idea what life, sentience, or consciousness are even in the adult human form, let alone the developing one. The 'viability' criteria was a convenient kludge in an earlier era, but is obsoleted in an era when we can clone mammals. Each side wants to wrap itself in a convenient absolutism (it's a life! it's a lump of tissue!) when neither can even state what a human being is with respect to themselves. Ask anyone who has seen dementia slowly turn a person that had every aspect of identity and personhood you see in yourself back into a mass of dumb tissue. There is an irrefutable point where the 'person' is simply gone, despite a fully formed and functional (including heart beat) physical body still existing in space. What happened to the person? Was that consciousness just a self-delusion created from complex but fully determinate processes? If it was 'real' what was its nature and does whatever it was still exist somewhere? Can you determine some magic crossover point between such a human existence and the dumb biological process that is all that is left in the end? We get no marker on that long downward slide, neither do we get one on the upward one. We don't get to see a ghostly spectral soul separating from the body and waving goodbye to resolve our uncertainties. In Indian philosophy there is a recognition of the difficulty in finding the actual "I" behind consciousness. In the West we pretty much ignore the issue and instead argue from the error of our chosen absolutes.

when is said there is no "right to privacy" in a previous post, i meant only that it is not specifically delineated and that is the originalist argument those three justices will no doubt write about. one can quibble whether the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures on one's person confers a general right to be able to do whatever one wants with one's body wherever one wants to do it.  not to mention whether it means you have the right to kill the other human body growing inside you.

the right to bear arms is clearly stated in the constitution, the question there has to do with the interpretation of the introductory clause.  and despite what you will read here, it is far from clear that the clause has a limiting purpose on the right.  18th century laws were written with such clauses a lot and not all of them were meant to limit the laws following the introductory sentences.

and - not to get off on a tangent here - but the constitution was written in the late 1700s.  in a functioning democracy, it would probably have been rewritten by now to reflect more modern ideas.  

[buddha]

52 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Yes, but even if they come to a bill that wins his approval, is there any guarantee there are sufficient votes in the House?

Its a real pickle because I'm not sure there are enough reps that will set aside their righteous anger to vote for a bill that can pass this Senate.

i think they would suck it up and vote for it, but i could be wrong.

[1984Echoes]

4 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm at the point where I don't care anymore. McConnell held open a Supreme Court seat for 9 months and that still wasn't enough to get Democrats to vote. An insurrection and voter suppression still doesn't appear to enough. I'm so tired of trying to care about things that don't affect me when that group just doesn't care enough to vote. Roe doesn't affect so get rid of it. It took over 50 years to get to this point but Democrats have thrown in the towel after 12 months. McConnell has been working at this since before AOC was born. Instead of taking what Manchin gives them and working on flipping PA, WI, FL, NC, OH etc, they just forfeit and hand it over to the Republicans. 

So sad...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And...

So True.

[mtutiger]

11 minutes ago, buddha said:

i think they would suck it up and vote for it, but i could be wrong.

I hope so, but AOC's comments have a real "Freedom Caucus" vibe to them that concerns me

[gehringer_2]

49 minutes ago, buddha said:

and - not to get off on a tangent here - but the constitution was written in the late 1700s.  in a functioning democracy, it would probably have been rewritten by now to reflect more modern ideas.

That is the real brilliance of BOR, that with the singular exception of the 2A, the statements are all conceptual instead of concrete, which has allowed the document to remain relevant despite the evolution of society into something beyond the imagination of bunch 18th anti-monarchists. The real problem is in the 1st two articles and the history of state additions, which has created a structure that has become non-democratic.

[Cartman]

Statement from Press Secretary Jen Psaki

Peppermint Patty ain’t none too pleased with Joe “the Democrat Mitt Romney” Manchin. The non-leftist / non-socialist / non-Woke branch of the Democratic Party (which is sadly a minority nowadays) are thankful Manchin has killed BBB, though they will never admit it publicly. 

[mtutiger]

This additional context in Manchin's statement this morning is where the rubber meets the road.

There has been a philosophical divide on doing less for longer or doing more for shorter, and it hasn't been clear throughout this process that this discrepancy has been dealt with.

Edited December 19, 2021 by mtutiger

[pfife]

1 hour ago, Cartman said:

Statement from Press Secretary Jen Psaki

Peppermint Patty ain’t none too pleased with Joe “the Democrat Mitt Romney” Manchin. The non-leftist / non-socialist / non-Woke branch of the Democratic Party (which is sadly a minority nowadays) are thankful Manchin has killed BBB, though they will never admit it publicly. 

I agree that there are other Democrats that are probably not in favor of it and let Manchin take the heat.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Manchin is an unserious person. Just like the GOP, he only cares about the deficit or inflation when it politically suits him. He had no problem voting last week for a $745 billion dollar defense bill which was $25 billion more than the original asking price.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Manchin also watched an insurrection happen that tried to take down our democratic institutions and threatened the future of free and fair elections. What was George W. Manchin's response to that, coming out and still opposing the For the People Act. Again, Manchin is not a serious political actor, he's just your run of the mill hypocrite.

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Manchin is an unserious person. Just like the GOP, he only cares about the deficit or inflation when it politically suits him. He had no problem voting last week for a $745 billion dollar defense bill which was $25 billion more than the original asking price.

Maybe Manchin figures if the gets enough progs to say bad things about him it will make a party switch before 2024 easier.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

Maybe Manchin figures if the gets enough progs to say bad things about him it will make a party switch before 2024 easier.

Maybe he's just a Trump-like grifter, trying to profit off being an elected leader, by opposing climate measures that threaten coal energy and his wallet.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

I think Democrats negotiated in good-faith which a guy who only cares about deficit spending and inflation when it suits him. What they were really negotiating with was a guy whose made millions off of coal energy, coal mining, and coal-fired power plants. Manchin saw the climate provisions in BBB as threatening his bottom line and opposed it from day one. At this point, I do agree that Democrats should pick a couple of programs (Child tax credit, universal pre-k, and Medicare negotiating drug prices) and call it a day from here. That still might happen after the holiday season and I certainly hope it does because Democrats need another big win to sell to people in the midterms.

[buddha]

a politician from west virginia supporting the coal industry should be a surprise to no one.