|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Unless they're slavering to overturn Obergefell like they were for Roe. Passing this bill would make overturning Obergefell meaningless, since it would eliminate the federal ban on recognition of gay marriage that Obergefell is currently nullifying. In order to ban gay marriage*, they would have to either find that the government does not have the power to define marriage, or find that the constitution can be construed to ban recognition of gay marriage, and both of those are a much bigger lift than what they did with abortion *Through the courts, if they take the trifecta again all bets are off
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Unless they're slavering to overturn Obergefell like they were for Roe. e:fb
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Unless they're slavering to overturn Obergefell like they were for Roe. Yeah, but that is the court's job and not theirs. If the court really wanted to, they could find a way to strike it down even with legislation because: A) They obviously don't care. and B) There is nothing specific about marriage in the constitution or federal jurisdiction over marriage, so they wouldn't even have to try that hard to find a fake "textualist" reason to send it back to the states. They likely couldn't/wouldn't find a way to bring back DOMA, but they could easily send it back to the states. So, I imagine most of those Senators who care about that possible cred would take their own self-interest over making it more annoying for the court to strike down Obergefell. If they really care deeply about getting rid of Obergefell, then they probably aren't angling for cred as a moderate anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Passing this bill would make overturning Obergefell meaningless, since it would eliminate the federal ban on recognition of gay marriage that Obergefell is currently nullifying. In order to ban gay marriage*, they would have to either find that the government does not have the power to define marriage, or find that the constitution can be construed to ban recognition of gay marriage, and both of those are a much bigger lift than what they did with abortion Queering Wheel posted:If this bill passes, there isn't really any point in overturning Obergefell. It wouldn't do anything when this federal bill is law. That's my point. This vote is meaningless, and an easy "yes" *unless* they want to overturn Obergefell. If the vote fails, I think it's evidence that the Republicans are gunning for same sex marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
Kanos posted:Hmm. "I am going to disappoint them". That's a pretty telling line! Obama should really go down as one of the great villains of American political history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Passing this bill would make overturning Obergefell meaningless, since it would eliminate the federal ban on recognition of gay marriage that Obergefell is currently nullifying. In order to ban gay marriage*, they would have to either find that the government does not have the power to define marriage, or find that the constitution can be construed to ban recognition of gay marriage, and both of those are a much bigger lift than what they did with abortion Obergefell did two things, A: required states to issue gay marriage licenses and B: honor gay marriage licenses issued in other states. I haven't read the bill in question but I assume it makes both of those federal law. The court could easily find that A is unconstitutional, states haven't historically been required to that so the federal government can't force them to, or whatever. Overruling B would be trickier because it would basically completely contravene the full faith and credit clause. Not that being consistent or sensible has ever stopped the Supreme Court from doing what it wants. It's well within the realm of possibility that we get a SCOTUS decision that says that states do have to honor marriage licenses granted in other states but don't have to issue gay marriage licenses if they don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
Clarence Thomas already said that the rulings post-Roe that were built on that decision are next, so it’s a proactive response to codify Obergfell’s protections into actual law. They also need to do this with contraception but I don’t know if there are enough GOP votes to get that through the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
Schumer confirms they are looking for a Senate vote on the Respect for Marriage Act. https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1549769461938405377 Graham was already one of those opposed, but he made extra clear that he is still opposed: https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1549769828164149248 Thune has also been opposed and says... he's still opposed, but respects the court's decision. Possibly opening up for a switch, but not clear. He does predict there will be some GOP crossover for it, but doesn't specify how much. https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1549767541492518912 FlamingLiberal posted:Clarence Thomas already said that the rulings post-Roe that were built on that decision are next, so it’s a proactive response to codify Obergfell’s protections into actual law. They also need to do this with contraception but I don’t know if there are enough GOP votes to get that through the Senate. To be fair, Thomas has been saying that since the 90's. The other conservative justices haven't joined him in that on their rulings, but also nothing is stopping them from doing so in the future. It's not clear there is an anti-"everything post Griswold" majority like there was an anti-Roe majority. You can't rule it out, but Thomas reiterating the same thing he has for 30 years isn't really a new signal. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jul 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Schumer confirms they are looking for a Senate vote on the Respect for Marriage Act. "And I don't think it's an issue right now that anybody's talking about" You're right - something Thomas has explicitly stated should be revisited (with the intention to overturn) and that many Americans are now worried is in danger and have explicitly stated publicly is not something "anybody's talking about". Galaxy brains through and through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:To be fair, Thomas has been saying that since the 90's. The other conservative justices haven't joined him in that on their rulings, but also nothing is stopping them from doing so in the future. The fact that Roe is gone is going to open up avenues for conservatives to eliminate a lot of ‘right to privacy’ based precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Romney was one of the Republican undecideds. He is still technically undecided, but is now saying the bill is "unnecessary" and he doesn't think they should spend time voting on it. That still leaves him open to eventually vote for it, but he is only undecided currently saying bad things about the vote. https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1549784259593998336 Manchin wasn't expected to be opposed, but just confirmed that he's fine with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Expecting this court to stick to precedent if that gets in the way of ideological outcome-based rulings is a bit of a stretch I wouldn't be comfortable making just now. They have their goals, they'll vomit up whatever word-chaff is necessary to reach those goals. Study that reality diligently if you like, they'll just make another reality as soon as is convenient.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
Some more Republican Senators on the record about their vote. It seems like it has a pretty good chance of getting 10 R votes. A lot of Senators are saying they don't think there should be a vote, but also refusing to give a straight "No" answer. If even a few of them end up on the "Yes" side, then it will have 10 with some room to spare. https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1549788907826446338 quote:“I’m going to delay announcing anything on that issue until we see what the majority leader wants to put on the floor,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told me. quote:“I’d have to read it first,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) said. In general, I followed up, did she believe Obergefell was correctly decided? “In general, I’d have to read it first,” she responded, without clarifying if she was still referring to the bill or to the seven-year-old Supreme Court decision. quote:“We haven’t seen language on it,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) replied, although the language of the House bill is publicly available. quote:“Is that on the floor? I’ll read bills when they show up,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) echoed. quote:“Why don’t you send me an email?” a spokesperson for Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) asked when I tried to press her boss. I emailed her, but never received a final answer in response. This is somehow the most surprising answer, but also completely expected given that it is Tuberville: https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1549789471750733824
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
shades of eternity posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwwlOsptE2M Who is this guy and why is his opinion notable? Looking at his channel it looks like he just talks about Star Trek stuff. The summary you gave isn't a particularly novel point. Does he actually bring up anything that's worth spending 11 minutes watching this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
In voting no. Because voting yes is a waste of time
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
I see the excuse of choice for not saying "I'm a gigantic homophobe" is a vague "Ugh what a waste of time, how can I possibly be bothered with trifling unimportant thing don't you people have anything better to do, i mean really? Now? With everything else going on? What is with you? (HARD NO)"
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:The public interest is, I would argue, more served by more strikes by all people to be quite honest. If you want to complain about how unions aren't acting in the public interest I would also ask you to look to politicians and question their own acts. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m only making the very simple point which sometimes escapes SA politics goons, which is that the ideal goal of unions is to serve the interests of its members. This can sometimes be in the public interest. Sometimes it isn’t. Obviously what is or isn’t in the public interest is debatable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:That’s not what I’m saying. I’m only making the very simple point which sometimes escapes SA politics goons, which is that the ideal goal of unions is to serve the interests of its members. This can sometimes be in the public interest. Sometimes it isn’t. Obviously what is or isn’t in the public interest is debatable. To mangle an old saying about a certain group "The public are the union members and the union members are the public". I don't believe there is an organised labour thread in this subforum, so I may well make one to talk it over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:To mangle an old saying about a certain group "The public are the union members and the union members are the public". I don't believe there is an organised labour thread in this subforum, so I may well make one to talk it over. There's one in CSPAM
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:To mangle an old saying about a certain group "The public are the union members and the union members are the public". That’s false. For example, most SA politics goons would likely maintain that many actions of police unions are not in the public interest. The way they often resolve the paradox created by holding this belief and the belief that labor unions always act in the public interest is by declaring police unions to not be “real” unions, whatever that means. But that’s totally false. Police unions are some of the most successful labor unions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It appears to be for a short time, but why is this acceptable? Shutting down US intermodal freight rail right now would... Make the Evergiven business look small. It would be a worldwide problem too. There is a lot of rail bridged container cargo on the Europe - Asia trade. But this is what should happen, but isn’t going to: Lib and let die posted:The rail companies could cede to the workers' demands
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:There's one in CSPAM Okay, great, but if someone wants to make one in DND they should be encouraged to do so, for those of us that would like slower moving and more carefully moderated threads.  No shade to my comrades in CSPAM, but a thread for that in DND would be very welcome. If someone puts the effort into making a solid OP, I'd be happy to sticky it for a couple days to get more eyes on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Mike Pence just got his first congressional endorsement for his 2024 run. https://twitter.com/MZanona/status/1549813642987716608
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:One Senate Republican moves from "no public position" on codifying gay marriage to... "might have a public position" on gay marriage. This motherfucker.... When this motherfucker was State House Speaker, he used taxpayer dollars to fight for our state's same-sex marriage ban amendment in court. Now, he's going to vote to codify what he fought against into law? I'm hoping to be surprised, but I don't trust Tillis as far as I can throw him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is basic terminology that you should really be able to do the bare minimum amount of your own homework on; they even gave you the name of relevant philosopher. Christian Realism is a ideology/theology explicitly about resolving the contradictions inherent in the intersection of Christian theology and politics, generally credited to Reinhold Niebuhr. I don't want a wikipedia summary of what christian realism is, I want to know what he's using it to mean that can be applied equally to the politics of Obama, McCain and Clinton. Obama was a fan of quoting Niebuhr but of course he was, that's the ultimate pop philosophy for people who don't actually believe in anything. I just don't personally see what part of his doctrine you could apply to the other two he mentioned. It was a question of personal definition, but thanks for taking the opportunity to act like a condescending rear end in a top hat about it
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
The NYT had an article on the stalled/doomed reauthorization of trade adjustment assistance today https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/business/economy/trade-adjustment-assistance-jobs.html I follow it pretty closely because it's a big part of my job, and it's super lovely that in a bill that gives like $50 billion to industry it's a dealbreaker to continue this decades-old program for workers for like a billion or so. Disband the senate please
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:There's one in CSPAM There is that, but it might be a good idea to get some more threads in here as well. silence_kit posted:That’s false. I mean police unions do have somewhat different approaches to things, including its approach to other unions and to enforcement of labour laws.This is not just an issue of "some goons believe this" but an issue of scholarship. Professor Beetus posted:Okay, great, but if someone wants to make one in DND they should be encouraged to do so, for those of us that would like slower moving and more carefully moderated threads. Thank you very much, maybe not tonight as I have to fill in job apps but thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:That’s false. Why is it totally false? If you're going to rock up and make statements that go against what basically everyone would agree is the consensus you need to back it up with something beyond deluded confidence. Police are the mechanism of state violence, and as such their very existence is opposed to the greater mass of labour. Calling police unions "labour unions" is like trying to claim socialists are racists by saying "well, what about the national socialist party? Are you just going to say they're not "real" socialists?" I mean what definition of "labour" are you going by? Just anyone who gets paid for doing something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:This is forcing the railway companies to negotiate with the unions. It is something the unions actually want. There has been no new contract for years because they haven't accepted a new collective bargaining agreement. A lot of companies out there will just not show up to the bargaining table at all, let alone show up with good faith negotiations. You end up with union members working under an expired contract with outdated terms, frozen wages, and essentially little to none of the job protection that a valid contract gives you. I don't know if it's the best option but forced arbitration has become a reasonable option for unions struggling with lovely companies who won't show. In my anecdotal experience the contracts that come out of it are generally at least acceptable/not terrible and it actually forces them to happen, which is a good thing. Tbh it can also help unions dodge the fallout from having to go on strike. Strike pay doesn't have poo poo on an actual full-time union paycheck, and strikes cause a whole lot of personal & intrapersonal stress; it's not a cool, easy noble thing to just do. IIRC the main issue with the railroad workers was the expired contract, so if these actions are actually forcing arbitration as I described it may not be a bad thing for the union.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Why is it totally false? If you're going to rock up and make statements that go against what basically everyone would agree is the consensus you need to back it up with something beyond deluded confidence. Police are the mechanism of state violence, and as such their very existence is opposed to the greater mass of labour. Calling police unions "labour unions" is like trying to claim socialists are racists by saying "well, what about the national socialist party? Are you just going to say they're not "real" socialists?" I mean what definition of "labour" are you going by? Just anyone who gets paid for doing something? Calling police unions not unions goes against the definition of what a union is. This just seems like "no true Scotsman".  Police union are these things. Your example of Nazis doesn't work, since they don't match the definition of socialist despite the name.  National socialists aren't advocating for this, despite the name. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jul 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
police aint unions, they're a military branch
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 20:07
|
|
|
One of the central reasons that police unions often aren't considered unions is precisely because they aren't composed solely of workers. The management and leadership of police organizations are also members of the so-called unions, and thus the purpose of the union is not to protect the interests of the workers but the industry as a whole. If Zuckerberg became the president of the Facebook Workers Union, and he and his executives used it to promote the corporate interests rather than those specific to the workers, then there would also be a lot of objection to considering that to be an actual labor union.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:One of the central reasons that police unions often aren't considered unions is precisely because they aren't composed solely of workers. The management and leadership of police organizations are also members of the so-called unions, and thus the purpose of the union is not to protect the interests of the workers but the industry as a whole. If Zuckerberg became the president of the Facebook Workers Union, and he and his executives used it to promote the corporate interests rather than those specific to the workers, then there would also be a lot of objection to considering that to be an actual labor union. Ok but police unions are clearly extremely effective at protecting the interests of the workers
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Ok but police unions are clearly extremely effective at protecting the interests of the workers No they are not. The courts who grant the police bullshit “immunity” and the executive branch who relies on them to institute state violence are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Ok but police unions are clearly extremely effective at protecting the interests of the workers Eh, it's pretty easy to be effective when the people that you're negotiating with are either on your side or terrified of 40-60% of the public losing their poo poo if you slight them in the slightest. Like the Kroger's union would probably kick rear end if a stalled negotiation had a majority of democrats screaming that the executives were starving the children and destroying the American family while the news ran non-stop stories about The Grocery Crisis 2022. Parakeet vs. Phone fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jul 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:No they are not. The courts who grant the police bullshit “immunity” and the executive branch who relies on them to institute state violence are. The police unions are consistent in advocating for the workers and ensuring no disciplinary action and suspension of pay happens without extensive investigations and representation on behalf of the worker. They don’t suddenly not become unions because people don’t like the work that the workers do. You’re right that qualified immunity and other legal protections also help police avoid accountability, but that doesn’t mean the unions aren’t also effective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Why is it totally false? If you're going to rock up and make statements that go against what basically everyone would agree is the consensus you need to back it up with something beyond deluded confidence. Police are the mechanism of state violence, and as such their very existence is opposed to the greater mass of labour. Like teachers and firefighters, police officers are government workers and form unions to maintain and improve the conditions of their employment [in the US] by state & local governments. You can play word games and define the term ‘union’ to exclude police unions if you wish, but IDK it kind of calls into question the idea of union solidarity, and hints at the idea that maybe unions don’t all share common interests and can be at odds with one another. some plague rats posted:I mean what definition of "labour" are you going by? Just anyone who gets paid for doing something? Police officers are government workers. Why wouldn’t they count as labor?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
A good example of the difference between unions and a police "union" would be comparing and contrasting a paid firefighters union with a police union. Both are goverment employees that are *supposed* to be for the public good, but they are different*. *Yes, I know there are slave firefighters, but I am too exausted to get into it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Ok but police unions are clearly extremely effective at protecting the interests of the workers Only to the extent that any lobbyist group does, and only as defined by the senior leadership that manages the war they are undertaking against civic oversight. The central concept of a labor union, which is to organize on behalf of the worker class against the coercive power of management, doesn't exist for police. I don't think you'll find many teamster, teaching, or nursing unions out there that exist to defend their management, conceal abuses of members, and attack safety reforms. If you're looking for a term, they're more a guild than a union.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Calling police unions not unions goes against the definition of what a union is. This just seems like "no true Scotsman". I think the problem here is that I'm not interested in the dictionary definition because presumably we're all adults and capable of understanding things through a political lens rather than a babys-first-words one. To get specific, my definition, which is a widely held leftist one: without getting granular, it breaks down broadly into "labor unions" which represent working people laboring for a wage under the system of capital which is trying to extract their surplus value, and what you might call "capital unions" which represent the forces arrayed against them preventing them from trying to retain any measure of said value. They're diametrically opposed to each other in both function and membership, so claiming "yeah, but they're both unions" is technically correct (best kind of correct) but also completely useless in terms of actually understanding and making a point, because it's like saying rangers and Celtic are the same because they're both football teams, or like saying the IRA and the UVF are the same because they're all Irish christians. e: this is a better definition Kaal posted:Only to the extent that any lobbyist group does, and only as defined by the senior leadership that manages the war they are undertaking against civic oversight. The central concept of a labor union, which is to organize on behalf of the worker class against the coercive power of management, doesn't exist for police. I don't think you'll find many teamster, teaching, or nursing unions out there that exist to defend their management, conceal abuses of members, and attack safety reforms. If you're looking for a term, they're more a guild than a union. some plague rats fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jul 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 20:56
|
|