|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In this situation, Mitch is actually giving something up now for the promise of something later. And, to fulfill that promise, Mitch needs either a Senate majority or for a majority of a Democratic judiciary committee to go along with it before Biden could even be obligated to fulfill his end. Oh, okay, I thought it was another case of "Mitch is getting what he wants now, and will TOTALLY not pull the football away this time guys". The best case I could see is if Biden said "Okay, I'll add your judicial appointee to the list. Right as soon as it's cleared of all these other appointees. Guess you should look into fast tracking that, huh?". Hopefully that is what happened and not "Mitch continues to play Dems because every Dem in power lacks basic pattern recognition skills".
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
Rigel posted:At the micro level for a particular business owner or a Federal defendant? Sure. For anything important, no not really. The appeals courts are not shy about overturning anything they don't agree with, unless its so unimportant that no one above the circuit level cares one way or another. In the federal system the circuit courts are the intermediate appellate courts (ie, between the district courts and SCOTUS). Aegis fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1542499382943272960 According to NBC, once Biden gets back to the U.S., the plan on Roe is: - Do some executive actions Initial ones are going to be: 1) Guarantee armed service members, federal employees, military bases, and organizations receiving federal money can all provide/receive/discuss/suggest abortions regardless of state law. 2) Clarify federal law does not allow states to ban abortion pills or any FDA-approved drug. Challenge any state that tries to. 3) Clarify federal law does not allow states to interfere with mail delivery in any way. 4) Drop a requirement that pharmacies who dispense abortion pills get a special FDA license. 5) Allow federal employees and service members to take paid leave to obtain an abortion if it is illegal in their state. 6) Clarify that states cannot drop or restrict access to Planned Parenthood for Medicaid recipients. 7) The federal government will defend medical providers that provide abortions for free. 8) Clarify that states cannot charge a woman for travelling out of state to seek an abortion and challenge any state that tries to. - Make a speech with more details and more executive actions to follow (no info on what speech will look like or what further executive actions will be). - Get every Democratic Senator and every Democratic Senate nominee in competitive races on the record about their position of waiving the filibuster to codify Roe. As part of this, get Schumer to say, "We currently have X votes to waive filibuster and codify Roe in the Senate right now. We have Y Senate candidates committed to doing it. Get us to 50 and we will do it in January 2023 and have a majority to confirm pro-choice justices" as part of their midterm pitch and commit every Senator who agreed to waive the filibuster for Roe to commit to a vote in January. - Focus on "doable things with concrete results." Things they are unlikely to do: 1) Doesn't want to spend time talking about expanding the court 2) Leaning against building abortion facilities on national parks or federal land in states where it is banned because of unclear legality and the problem of them being constantly shut down and reopened under different Presidents. Will likely require military bases to perform abortions in compliance with Hyde. 3) Unlikely to "declare a national emergency" over abortion because of unclear legality and whether it would make any difference for the things they want to do. 4) Unlikely to call for restricting Supreme Court's jurisdiction. - Issue new HIPPA guidance to prevent people with access to medical records from reporting people they suspect of having or performing abortions to state law enforcement. - Complete a review of state healthcare exchanges to make sure none of them are violating the contraception mandate. More than expected in some areas, but not a lot of it is going to concretely impact abortion access immediately in states that ban it. Also, codifying Roe also comes with the unspoken disclaimers of "pray that it doesn't get back to the Supreme Court quickly and if it does, then pray they aren't ready to go so far as declaring fetal personhood" and "if we keep the Senate and House." Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
I don't love the idea of betting against this SCOTUS being "ready to go so far"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
There goes your majority. https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1542508251589124096?s=21&t=iY8rinxNqnh3A8dYiTp1mw Hip surgery at his age is, uh, dicey.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Will likely require military bases to perform abortions in compliance with Hyde The Hyde amendment prevents government money from being spent directly on abortions so what does this mean exactly? Ask the medics nicely to do it for free? No elective abortions, only rape/incest/health emergencies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The Hyde amendment prevents government money from being spent directly on abortions so what does this mean exactly? Ask the medics nicely to do it for free? No elective abortions, only rape/incest/health emergencies? Yes. Hyde allows federal money for abortions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. The military will provide leave for service members who have to leave the state to obtain an abortion, but military doctors won't actively perform elective abortions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The Hyde amendment prevents government money from being spent directly on abortions so what does this mean exactly? Ask the medics nicely to do it for free? No elective abortions, only rape/incest/health emergencies? To add on to the above, it's sadly not uncommon for, say, VA or IHS facilities to believe that the Hyde amendment means no abortions at all. Reinforcing the need to actually honor the Hyde exceptions and administer abortions in those cases is a meaningful harm reduction step (although the Hyde amendment is loving garbage and needs to go away yesterday).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:There goes your majority. Scott had said that, had Sanders become president or whatever, he would have replaced him with another Democratic-leaning Independent. I suspect he might do the same here; keep in mind that VT elects governors every 2 years (including this November) so if Leahy were to die and if Scott were to put a Republican in his place, he'd be committing political suicide
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Quorum posted:To add on to the above, it's sadly not uncommon for, say, VA or IHS facilities to believe that the Hyde amendment means no abortions at all. Reinforcing the need to actually honor the Hyde exceptions and administer abortions in those cases is a meaningful harm reduction step (although the Hyde amendment is loving garbage and needs to go away yesterday). My understanding is there is a separate legal provision that blocks the VA from covering abortions; Discendo Vox posted:I don't think the VHA is even allowed to provide abortions to eligible vets; it looks like they were precluded from it by a provision of the VHA law of 1992: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg4943.pdf (section 106 on page 5).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:There goes your majority. Not really if they do the surgery immediately. I mean it’s not great for his long term (lol) health but he’ll probably be fine. Octagenarians falling is a hospitals bread and butter! Also more great news: https://mobile.twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542512147158077441
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Yeah, I did not have the energy or the desire to break it down, but this really is not a big deal. These are just circuit court judges, they don't decide nationally important things. The only reason to not do the deal is if you want to say "gently caress your friend and gently caress you Mitch, I don't like you, so I'm going to be an rear end in a top hat. You want to delay some of our circuit court judges too? Fine" It’s actually kind of important considering how laser focused the Republican Party has been on grabbing every judicial seat possible for the past forty to fifty years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Scott had said that, had Sanders become president or whatever, he would have replaced him with another Democratic-leaning Independent. I suspect he might do the same here; keep in mind that VT elects governors every 2 years (including this November) so if Leahy were to die and if Scott were to put a Republican in his place, he'd be committing political suicide Leahy won’t be able to vote. Iron Lung posted:Not really if they do the surgery immediately. Love to take 82 year olds off their aspirin and oral anticoagulation to do a surgery that by itself drastically increases their stroke risk requiring anesthesia which at his age causes notable cognitive decline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Iron Lung posted:Not really if they do the surgery immediately. I mean it’s not great for his long term (lol) health but he’ll probably be fine. Octagenarians falling is a hospitals bread and butter! So the question is, is the decision written in a way that fucks over all government agencies, as people were fearing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
538's first midterm election forecast is out: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/ 87% chance for Republicans to take the House. Most likely scenario is ~237 seats for Republicans (net of +27) Senate is a toss up (53% chance for Republican control). Most likely scenarios are 50/50 split (net change of 0) or 53 Republican seats (net change of +3) *Insert obvious disclaimers about how there isn't a ton of polling out for specific races and there are still 4 months, etc. etc.*
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Leahy won’t be able to vote. oh duh i didn't think of that. ugh
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:So the question is, is the decision written in a way that fucks over all government agencies, as people were fearing? It makes it harder for them to do their jobs, and significantly harder to address the climate crisis, but it isn't an instant dissolution of every administrative agency like was feared
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Leahy won’t be able to vote. Oh yeah it’s not great that we’re one broken hip away from a majority loss, but pretty sure current best practice is to operate asap for hips a femurs to lower stroke risk and post op issue so they can get back on their AC. I’m just saying he’s not gonna croak in the OR and he’ll most likely be fine afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
haveblue posted:and significantly harder to address the climate crisis, Which is loving impossible already, as one of the first thing Trump ordered was that you couldn't mention 'climate change' in articles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
87% chance of success means that the Dems have a 13% chance of pulling out a Hail Mary. Hopefully Joe's Executive Orders will help sway things a bit, now that he's remembered that he can, in fact, actually do something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Well Democracy had a good run I guess https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1542521353344913417?s=21&t=qesPTpaIeqESaGXZuuteGA I can’t imagine them taking this up is going to end well for this country
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Randalor posted:87% chance of success means that the Dems have a 13% chance of pulling out a Hail Mary. Hopefully Joe's Executive Orders will help sway things a bit, now that he's remembered that he can, in fact, actually do something. I think the odds of that are slimmer than indicated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Well Democracy had a good run I guess The timing on that is conspicuous and not in the direction you're suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
haveblue posted:It makes it harder for them to do their jobs, and significantly harder to address the climate crisis, but it isn't an instant dissolution of every administrative agency like was feared
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Well Democracy had a good run I guess Cool, cool, so how long until we see the "answer a question with vague wording correctly, where the answer is up to the discretion of the person giving the test who also happens to be holding a paper bag up next to you" types of "requirements" again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:It basically says that Congress has to give them explicit approval for regulations, which is in reality an impossibility with the goal of the Republicans to get rid of regulations. And the court knows it's impossible. Which is still better than the expected ruling of "Congress is not allowed to delegate regulating authority, full stop. All regulations not in the form of laws passed by Congress and signed by the president are void immediately." haveblue fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The timing on that is conspicuous and not in the direction you're suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Which is still better than the expected ruling of "Congress is not allowed to delegate regulating authority, full stop. All regulations not in the form of laws passed by Congress and signed by the president are void immediately."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The timing on that is conspicuous and not in the direction you're suggesting. Can you explain what you mean by this a bit more? What reason do we have to think the court will uphold the current level of the federal government's ability to regulate elections?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:They are void until Congress says otherwise, yes? How much faith do you have in Congress? I'm not a lawyer and haven't read the decision but the reaction from people who have is that the only thing that gets immediately invalidated is the EPA's CO2 authority. Other regulations are now *more* vulnerable to challenge but still in effect until that challenge actually happens
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:Can you explain what you mean by this a bit more? What reason do we have to think the court will uphold the current level of the federal government's ability to regulate elections? If the court wanted to permanently enshrine republican power or some kind of electoral subjectivity they could have done that at many other points. That this comes specifically during the hearings as a significant effort to strengthen electoral institutions is, again, conspicuous. If the goal was to sneak something like that through, the best time to do that would not be at the exact moment people are most aware of trumpist threats to our elections. Additionally, idk if there's enough justices for a majority ruling of 'actually elections can be overturned by cranky state legislatures.' I don't know what's going to happen with it, but if it's what flamingliberal thinks then they managed to somehow pick the least auspicious day for that announcement ever. Also to come back to the original question: because courts like being relevant and respected and they tend to be obsessed with tradition and decorum. Even conservative justices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
They are done "sneaking through" poo poo. I would think that's pretty obvious at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:They are done "sneaking through" poo poo. I would think that's pretty obvious at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:They are done "sneaking through" poo poo. I would think that's pretty obvious at this point. 1) This would be wildly premature to kick off a constitutional crisis and 2) if they give up the appearance of neutrality now then they lose the ability to lend legitimacy to a seizure of power later, assuming for the purposes of this hypothetical that that is indeed their motivation. Unless the goal was to kick off the crisis over the midterms, but again, why take the risk when they already believe that they will win those without cheating? It's also a hugely more difficult battle against a hostile executive branch Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Normally I'd agree it's too far but then I remember Roberts gutted the VRA with no constitutional basis after it was overwhelmingly re-upped by Congress and he, Kavanaugh, and Barrett helped steal an election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I'm not a lawyer and haven't read the decision but the reaction from people who have is that the only thing that gets immediately invalidated is the EPA's CO2 authority. Other regulations are now *more* vulnerable to challenge but still in effect until that challenge actually happens
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:1) This would be wildly premature to kick off a constitutional crisis and 2) if they give up the appearance of neutrality now then they lose the ability to lend legitimacy to a seizure of power later, assuming for the purposes of this hypothetical that that is indeed their motivation. Why do you think they care about maintaining appearances of neutrality now? They're in lifetime appointed seats, and the Democrat party has shown that they keep wanting to follow the "rules" that Republicans have been playing Calvinball with for over a decade, and the Supreme Court seems to have final say on. This is the Republicans showing they've won the game at this point, because Democrats are refusing to flip the table.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Normally I'd agree it's too far but then I remember Roberts gutted the VRA with no constitutional basis after it was overwhelmingly re-upped by Congress and he, Kavanaugh, and Barrett helped steal an election. I'm not ruling anything out and I'm no expert SCOTUS watcher, I'm just saying the timing on that really does not line up with that being their goal. I assume we'll know soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
Nice that they gave us a rough timeline for when they’ll be ending American democracy I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:42
|
|
