|
Does extradition between states require double-criminality? I feel that's pretty standard in international extradition agreements, but I have no idea how it applies to state-level crimes between different states.
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Its uncanny how well that video aged. It's literally just describing reality. Been said before, and it remains accurate: Democrats and liberal party loyalists have been trained wrong, on purpose, like Wimp Lo, and actively pushing out anyone who actually wants to accomplish anything, while looking on in horror as the things they DO take for granted are being torn to pieces in front of them by the fascists. Ghost Leviathan fucked around with this message at 04:21 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:16
|
|
|
Very good points, as an aside the first person to quote this will get a 12 hour with a lovingly curated image of Lenin and a big truck
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:27
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Very good points, as an aside the first person to quote this will get a 12 hour with a lovingly curated image of Lenin and a big truck Lenin IN a big truck or WITH a big truck?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:28
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Lenin IN a big truck or WITH a big truck? Alongside if that makes any difference, still up for it?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:30
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Alongside if that makes any difference, still up for it? Oh absolutely, it was a rhetorical question to avoid empty quoting. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:32
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Oh absolutely, it was a rhetorical question to avoid empty quoting. I thought so but wanted to be sure since I have more than one Lenin+Big Truck image. Enjoy!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:34
|
|
|
Oh dang I've got one more ready to go it appears, who here is a fan of boiled prawn and wants 12 hours to relax and enjoy themselves?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:36
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Oh dang I've got one more ready to go it appears, who here is a fan of boiled prawn and wants 12 hours to relax and enjoy themselves? Put me (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:I mean, we could have drawn the line on the 2000 election, but at least speaking for myself I couldn't vote in that one. Getting the 2016 election with a D president would have given them the Supreme Court without opening the door to Senate+presidency court packing Would it, even if Hillary won the Dems still failed to take the Senate, why wouldn't McConnell just leave Scalia and Ginsburg's seats open until 2021 when whatever Republican won could replace them and Kennedy too. Then we'd be hearing forever about how 2020 was the turning point, or 2024, or whenever a Democrat finally lost that would be the magic year that it was all the voters' fault and the forever excuse to never do anything again because we should have voted in Seems to me Roe was doomed because the Democratic Party wasn't willing to use its supermajority to codify it, and wasn't willing to play hardball with the courts the way Republicans were. The particular year that gave Republicans the majorities to lock in the courts is just happenstance, it was gonna happen anyway because Democrats confirm Republican judges and Republicans don't confirm Democratic judges so there was only one way the court was eventually going to end up. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:41 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Would it, even if Hillary won the Dems still failed to take the Senate, why wouldn't McConnell just leave Scalia and Ginsburg's seats open until 2021 when whatever Republican won could replace them and Kennedy too. For what it's worth, Pelosi got asked about the bolded part earlier today. If you jump to 1:20, the interviewer asks her if Obama was wrong not to push harder for the Freedom of Choice Act, and she straight up says that the Democratic Party wasn't pro-choice in 2009: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1523322245497643008
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
If states say that fetuses are people, doesn’t that mean pregnant women can’t be arrested since the fetuses didn’t go through due process?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Would it, even if Hillary won the Dems still failed to take the Senate, why wouldn't McConnell just leave Scalia and Ginsburg's seats open until 2021 when whatever Republican won could replace them and Kennedy too. There was a supermajority of nominally D senators, but not a supermajority for abortion specifically. I already addressed the point about needing the Senate - yes, they likely would have needed it (or else Hillary or whatever other hypothetical winner would have needed to go to the mat on not leaving vacancies for that long). My point though is that once we set modern precedent for the number of justices in the SC being flexible, it is the same as throwing it out altogether - the decisions will stop being meaningfully binding in either direction. It might have happened anyway if you swap which party won 2016 and 2020, just with the Rs breaking the norms instead, but at least they would have had to work for it. TheIncredulousHulk posted:It's actually not obvious you meant that when, later in the same sentence, you explicitly listed control of the Senate as an additional requirement for court packing on top of the presidency, with the obvious interpretation to me being that you were defining this as an additional requirement relative to normal order The following sentence was "court-packing", i.e. changing the number of justices. I already answered the other half, but to reiterate: The reason there wasn't an Obamacare repeal is primarily because they still had to work around the filibuster, they ultimately lost the window to do it thanks to reconciliation's stupid minutiae. In the case of abortion, it would never be eligible for anything like that (no budgetary impact), so in the first place the Dems would have needed to make a filibuster carve-out specifically for it (since at least one Blue Dog was staunchly opposed to abortion, leaving 60 impossible), and the Republicans wouldn't have to do anything extra to make it pass with 50 as a result.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 05:16
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Oh dang I've got one more ready to go it appears, who here is a fan of boiled prawn and wants 12 hours to relax and enjoy themselves? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 05:18
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:If states say that fetuses are people, doesn’t that mean pregnant women can’t be arrested since the fetuses didn’t go through due process? I want to see someone claim self defense. You don't even need to be in a state with castle doctrine laws, because you can truthfully claim that you tried to flee but the fetus pursued and left you with no choice but to use lethal force.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 05:22
|
|
|
Aw geez hold on lemme see if I can find something for this
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 05:24
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:I want to see someone claim self defense. You don't even need to be in a state with castle doctrine laws, because you can truthfully claim that you tried to flee but the fetus pursued and left you with no choice but to use lethal force.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:I want to see someone claim self defense. You don't even need to be in a state with castle doctrine laws, because you can truthfully claim that you tried to flee but the fetus pursued and left you with no choice but to use lethal force. Fetal eviction notice: every uterus is a rental property, that deadbeat fetus hasn't paid you rent for a month, got a court order and a call to the sheriff's department to remove them from the premise.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 05:30
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:There was a supermajority of nominally D senators, but not a supermajority for abortion specifically. Which Blue Dog was impossible to convince Likewise, what proof do you have that none of the openly pro-choice Republican senators at the time would have been willing to budge e: Regardless this is getting kind of silly because you've completely abandoned your original argument that prior legislation is inherently indefensible without a SC majority and have moved the goalposts to "this specific piece of legislation, passed at this time and in this specific way, would not have made a difference based on a list of unprovable assumptions I've made" TheIncredulousHulk fucked around with this message at 05:44 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 05:32
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:There was a supermajority of nominally D senators, but not a supermajority for abortion specifically. Nancy Pelosi Says Democrats’ Focus on Abortion Access Is Hurting the Party And still don't now https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1502395409360113668 That seems like a much bigger deal, you had two anti-abortion parties, one supported rolling rights back more slowly than the other, so what you ended up with was abortion rights ratcheting down when Republicans won, and the new status quo being maintained when Democrats won. Pointing to 2016 is convenient rhetorically, nice quip to shame people over not supporting her when it was her turn, but ultimately no way for the right to survive when one party wanted to kill it and the other wasn't interested in protecting it. BougieBitch posted:I already addressed the point about needing the Senate - yes, they likely would have needed it (or else Hillary or whatever other hypothetical winner would have needed to go to the mat on not leaving vacancies for that long). But this is really why it was inevitable, you're now insisting that Democrats have to win everything all the time for abortion rights to be protected. But meanwhile Republicans were able to destroy them by only getting 3 presidential terms since 1992. Because Democrats confirm Republican judges and Republicans don't confirm Democrat judges. Because Republicans want to overturn Roe and Democrats want to get votes from both sides of the issue and that means not protecting Roe too aggressively. BougieBitch posted:My point though is that once we set modern precedent for the number of justices in the SC being flexible, it is the same as throwing it out altogether - the decisions will stop being meaningfully binding in either direction Good? Surely that's better than a binding Republican court that just makes up whatever laws it wants 100% of the time instead of roughly half the time. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:13 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 05:54
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Which Blue Dog was impossible to convince The anti-abortion blue dogs at the time were Pryor, Carper, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad. For pro-choice, I'm guessing you mean Murkowski, but she voted against abortion rights in 2003. Collins and Snowe are the other two possibles, but regardless of how you frame it that still looks like an uphill climb. I suppose you might have better luck asking for cloture than the actual yea votes. On the other hand, that didn't work for the ACA, so I don't see any reason why people wouldn't take hostages here as well. Remember that there still were no votes from any Republicans on the ACA - I doubt party discipline would be any weaker for anything else. Assuming good faith from Collins and Murkowski is a total joke considering the judges they confirmed, but maybe Snowe was different - if you are arguing that it "could've" worked I can't PROVE that they wouldn't have been able to get to 60, but even that just means the Supreme Court has to issue a slightly broader ruling - they already are fine overturning legislation, as shown by the ACA rulings and Shelby, so I really don't see why we think they would suddenly give a poo poo now when they are already breaking precedent by overturning settled law TheIncredulousHulk posted:e: Regardless this is getting kind of silly because you've completely abandoned your original argument that prior legislation is inherently indefensible without a SC majority and have moved the goalposts to "this specific piece of legislation, passed at this time and in this specific way, would not have made a difference based on a list of unprovable assumptions I've made" That was never the argument, the argument was that legislation isn't any easier to defend than Supreme Court precedent, and the fact we are in a situation where the second is being overturned means there has already been a window where the first would have been (2017-2018), and anything we do going forward is just as temporary (likely to be overturned in 2025), because the Supreme Court is the only thing that EVER had staying power of longer than a few years and now no longer will as it loses (the public perception of) legitimacy. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 06:23 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:The fetus is literally stealing your energy. We can definitely make a case off of this I mean even if they pass a fetal personhood bill, yeah. If a grown child requires an organ or fluid donation, the mother is not required to provide it. So why should they be required to provide it to an unborn child? Like obviously we don't have real rule of law and no one cares, but I can't imagine how you could do a fetal personhood law and not have it accidentally allow abortions under self defense, at least until you also pass some kind of law requiring that parents are obligated to provide organ/tissue donations to children as well as food and housing.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Yeah I think people need a reality check on their narrow views of the the institutions in America. The Supreme Court is a political branch so why are people so hung up on embracing this fact? It’s purposely causing unnecessary anguish for the sake of decorum.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Yeah, I've stated explicitly that getting rid of the Supreme Court is better now that we have gone down this path, but if RBG/Scalia/Kennedy had been replaced by Dem appointments then there would have been some chance for stability on rights. The way things are now, we could end up with gay marriage, abortion, and birth control going from legal to illegal on 2-8 year cycles. The only way this would ever reasonably stabilize is if crazies die off or capital exerts enough pressure to force the regulatory environment to stay steady. The back-and-forth with net neutrality is another example of how lovely this kind of thing can be on something slightly more opaque, but imagine how much more awful it will be when whether you can visit your partner in the hospital depends on which political party could last make laws, or when you are at risk of going to jail if you don't get your IUD removed because the rules changed and now your next sex act would otherwise be a crime Edit: Basically, I'd rather live in the world where we have to keep flipping coins than the one where we always lose, but there is no way to walk this back to a functional government from here because this is basically the endpoint of governmental entropy - we get the fash or a revolution with uncertain results within a pretty small timeframe from here, and the revolution isn't guaranteed to be a positive step either BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 06:37 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:32
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I think at least some of that is due to the structural nature of a government that gives land more power than population. The Senate is inherently undemocratic and has only gotten worse the more polarized our society gets (and the more leftist/liberals consolidate in large urban areas). Abolishing the Senate would pretty much be at the top of my wishlist for structural change in this country, not that it's any more likely than a populist revolution or a new constitutional convention (which would given the make up of state governors be another victory for Republicans anyway). I think there's a deeper issue, one which has more to do with our perception. Put simply, what matters isn't just whether people support a policy, but also how much they want that policy. A pollster rolling in and asking "do you support this policy, yes/no" shows whether people like the idea of a policy, but it doesn't give any real data about whether they're going to take real political action to push for that policy. I can't find the post about it, but someone posted a poll recently where the "do you support policy X, yes/no" questions showed that two policies had apparently similar very high levels of support...but the poll also had a "what issue is most important to you" question, which showed that a fair number of people considered policy A to be very important, while policy B had almost nobody ranking it as particularly important. Policy A and Policy B both had comparable numbers of people stating support for them, but when the poll switched to gauging importance rather than support, Policy A was way out in front. I think it's fair to say that even though policy B had a supermajority of people apparently supporting it, there would not be very much actual political push for Policy B to get passed. Sure, the American structure isn't perfectly democratic. But even outright authoritarians still have to pay heed to public sentiment and can be influenced by public pressure. So if something's not getting done, I think it's important to look more closely at how the public really feels about the issue. Before jumping straight to "it's undemocratic", it's important to make sure that you're not being led astray by your preconceptions. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:This thread really does a good job laying out the scenarios for violence coming in our future due to roe being overturned. The tweet thread looks like fantasy to me, mostly because he keeps saying "who knows what might happen?????" about things where the relevant laws are clear and well-defined, and his hypothetical possibilities have basically no precedent. If a person breaks the law in a red state, and then flees to a blue state, then the blue state is constitutionally obligated to extradite them to the red state. If a person goes to a blue state and does something that's illegal in a red state, the red state can't do anything, because the act was committed in a jurisdiction where their laws do not have legal force. He's just kinda assuming that the little political disputes that have gone just fine for decades are suddenly going to lead to governors raising the National Guard to march halfway across the US to intervene in individual prosecutions.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1523322245497643008?s=21&t=y_wDe6xY1pdzSK-LUHohtA At the end of this video, Nancy Pelosi states that the Democratic Party was not pro-choice in 2009. It’s kind of hosed how they will run on being pro-choice at the time, but then when asked why they didn’t do anything about codifying Roe 13 years later, she says that they aren’t pro-choice.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The tweet thread looks like fantasy to me, mostly because he keeps saying "who knows what might happen?????" about things where the relevant laws are clear and well-defined, and his hypothetical possibilities have basically no precedent. There are states already drafting laws that will make it a criminal act to leave the state for the purposes of getting an abortion. What makes you think laws are going to be respected between two states who are openly hostile to one another? How do you think blue state citizens going to react if their government turns over pregnant refugees to red states so they can be jailed or murdered? Or what kind of actions a red state might make if that person isn't surrendered? It's unlikely that the interstate laws we're accustomed to will keep applying. We're beyond the pale here.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:51
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Yeah I think people need a reality check on their narrow views of the the institutions in America. Because if they don't double and triple down on decorum for decorum's sake, everything they've been doing for the last few decades has been completely useless at best, actively counterproductive at worst.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:55
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:The anti-abortion blue dogs at the time were Pryor, Carper, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad. Well I agree that an uphill climb is more than anybody should ever realistically expect from the Democrats That said, you're now trying to both argue over the likelihood of a counterfactual that's still using your feelings as evidence(why would Republican party discipline be stronger over the passage of a law with no first order economic interests that reaffirms the status quo when the Republican senators in question publicly support that position in contravention of their party? They're certainly willing to concede it as a position when the concession is packaged with material gains, but FoCA was the most binary bill imaginable and it would have been political malpractice not to force the publicly pro-choice Republican senators to vote it down if that was actually what they'd do), while at the same time returning to the "no legislation passed by Congress actually matters because the Supreme Court can and will simply legislate itself" well, as an apparent hedge against the event that your current counterfactual folds, and if that's your takeaway there is no point in insisting passing FoCA would have been impossible, and you're simply saying "well even if I'm wrong about this I'm still right." Moreover, if you're assuming the Supreme Court has a limitless outer bound of action, why don't they just kill the ACA right now since it survived the first time? It's that easy, right? When placed against the original post you made, which was an "honest question" asking why anyone seemed to think that codification would have mattered because it would have been easily repealed by the 2017 Republican trifecta--not because codification could not have been achieved, nor because codification could have been repealed from the bench, but specifically because it would have been trivial to repeal by passing a law saying it's no longer the law--it really seems to me like you settled on the conclusion that Democrats could not have done anything to prevent this destruction of abortion rights ahead of time and refuse to consider that you may be wrong about that
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:55
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1523322245497643008?s=21&t=y_wDe6xY1pdzSK-LUHohtA I don't understand how anyone can have a scrap of faith in them if the excuse for "Obama broke a pretty important promise" is "Yeah, actually we didn't give a poo poo about women 13 years ago and were lying through our teeth about the policy positions."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 06:59
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:There are states already drafting laws that will make it a criminal act to leave the state for the purposes of getting an abortion. What makes you think laws are going to be respected between two states who are openly hostile to one another? How do you think blue state citizens going to react if their government turns over pregnant refugees to red states so they can be jailed or murdered? Or what kind of actions a red state might make if that person isn't surrendered? For the most part, the blue state citizens will probably grumble a bit and then go on with their day, just like they do with every other day-to-day injustice in their own states. Similarly, the red state citizens will blow hot air about it for a couple of days, and then they'll move on to being mad about something else. We're nowhere near "beyond the pale". Abortion was legal in some states and illegal in others before Roe, this is hardly unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 07:26
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:I don't understand how anyone can have a scrap of faith in them if the excuse for "Obama broke a pretty important promise" is "Yeah, actually we didn't give a poo poo about women 13 years ago and were lying through our teeth about the policy positions." Only 23 democratic senators currently serving were seated in the 2009 senate. 2/3rds of the “we” being invoked of that 2009 class is no longer around. It is not unusual to believe that the class of 2022 believes different things than the class of 2009.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 07:32
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:Only 23 democratic senators currently serving were seated in the 2009 senate. 2/3rds of the “we” being invoked of that 2009 class is no longer around. It is not unusual to believe that the class of 2022 believes different things than the class of 2009. Why should we believe they aren't lying through their teeth now, especially when they go to the mat for anti-abortion incumbents and their only material response to the draft decision has been to fundraise?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 08:07
|
|
|
Lemming posted:We are currently in this situation, empirically. Even by your own argument, we are in this situation because of how 2016 went. The point I'm arguing is that, even putting aside whether putting legislation in place that protected abortion was good or not (it would be good), I'm saying that by passing those laws and forcing Republicans to undo them, that would stir up the Democratic base to vote to stop it. Creating more battles over this issue is good because it causes people to believe you're fighting for them more and you have more credibility that if they vote for you, you'll do something about it. Basic stuff here. Actually making an effort, even if there is opposition, plays better than sitting around doing nothing while your theoretically minority opposition party gets their platform planks through by default.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 11:41
|
|
|
Tnega posted:In that case, extradition happens. I don't know of any cases where someone crosses borders from state a to state b, to do an action that is criminal in a, but not b, where they are charged for doing it in a. Given that it crosses a state border, there is federal jurisdiction as well. You would still need a federal statute to get federal jurisdiction; I'm assuming there's not a federal law against abortion and (hopefully) the Democrat Party isn't such a waste that it would allow that to happen, even when they're in the minority come the next election. PT6A posted:Does extradition between states require double-criminality? I feel that's pretty standard in international extradition agreements, but I have no idea how it applies to state-level crimes between different states. Technically no, but generally yes. The state requesting rendition has to inform the receiving state of the charges and provide documentation that's a legit rendition request (usually in the form of an arrest warrant) and the person being rendered needs to be a fugitive. While the fugitive doesn't have a right to hearing, I don't know of any states that don't have a hearing on it and governors will deny the rendition request if they feel it's necessary. They can do it on Constitutional grounds-- assuming the paperwork's in order, there would be a couple of different things here, but the key ones would be the need to be a fugitive from the first state and there needs to be a substantive criminal charge. If you weren't in state A when the crime was committed, you're not a fugitive for that purpose. I'm not sure how this would interact with a law that says it's illegal to leave the state to get an abortion, would the crime be committed while you're still in the first state or does not happen until you cross over into the next state. Governors also can and do deny rendition on equitable grounds as well, particularly for due process violations. In the past it was things like illness of the fugitive, that the fugitive has been rehabilitated, justice wouldn't be served by rendering them, etc. During the hearing, the fugitive can also point out defenses they would use in the upcoming criminal case and governors can and do deny on the merits of the case. Finally, governors can deny without giving a reason. Hopefully governors in pro-choice states would deny rendition requests for abortion "crimes" from regressive states as a matter of course. When it's denied under equitable grounds, states rarely protest unless they think the governor's reasoning is inadequate, but even they can't really do anything about it. The requesting state might as the feds for help under the Fugitive Felon Act; the state would just need probable cause that the fugitive committed the crime in question and then fled the state to avoid prosecution. That particular act has a list of crimes that it can be used for and abortion isn't on it. Murder is, so a state might argue if they define abortion as murder that it should kick in, but the crimes have always been construed extremely narrowly and the feds have been super reluctant to go after people for committing a state crime only (though this might change in the next Trump admin).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:You would still need a federal statute to get federal jurisdiction; I'm assuming there's not a federal law against abortion and (hopefully) the Democrat Party isn't such a waste that it would allow that to happen, even when they're in the minority come the next election. You know that's wildly unlikely. If the GOP takes both houses the nanosecond anything that looks like resistance pops up the filibuster is gone (at the discretion of the President Pro Tempore) and they hold a marathon session to jam through all their legislative agenda at once.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:I'm assuming there's not a federal law against abortion Only one I am seeing is The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which is about a specific method.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think there's a deeper issue, one which has more to do with our perception. Put simply, what matters isn't just whether people support a policy, but also how much they want that policy. A pollster rolling in and asking "do you support this policy, yes/no" shows whether people like the idea of a policy, but it doesn't give any real data about whether they're going to take real political action to push for that policy. Yeah I this is correct and it's just another way of saying the US is a corporate oligarchy. It doesn't really matter what the voters want, unless it's so dear to them that they're willing to actually make the ruling party suffer over it. So the patina of democracy on top lets the ruling class shift responsibility for the stuff they would do anyway onto the people: hey if you really cared about this issue you'd be single-issue voters over it and then you'd get what you want so by not doing that you're consenting to whatever we do instead. But of course you can't be a single-issue voter about everything so most of the time the ruling class just gets to do what they want, and they have to pay attention to the public little more than unvarnished dictatorships do. Just make sure they don't do anything too unpopular so the population doesn't rise up and break poo poo (either figuratively by punishing all the politicians in power electorally, or literally with civil unrest), and for the most part the people can just be ignored.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You know that's wildly unlikely. If the GOP takes both houses the nanosecond anything that looks like resistance pops up the filibuster is gone (at the discretion of the President Pro Tempore) and they hold a marathon session to jam through all their legislative agenda at once. The last time the GOP was in that position they dithered around and infought and only managed to pass a tax break for the rich. Not that I'd ever want to be at their mercy, but there's plenty of precedence that tells us that the GOP is at least as incompetent at legislating as the dems.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
Dopilsya posted:You would still need a federal statute to get federal jurisdiction; I'm assuming there's not a federal law against abortion and (hopefully) the Democrat Party isn't such a waste that it would allow that to happen, even when they're in the minority come the next election. A) I get the feeling that there are dems who will vote for a federal abortion ban. Manchin almost definitely. B) Republicans will kill the filibuster to get it through if no/not enough senate dems sign on Meatball fucked around with this message at 14:49 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 14:43
|
|
