|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Rick Scott's coup attempt to become Senate GOP leader is over in less than 24 hours. I’m honestly surprised he got 10 votes
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Is the NRSC change really punishment for this or punishment for how the midterms turned out? Or is that  ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
People seem to be making a lot about today's issue of the NY Post, where they dunked on Trump's announcement for a bit. https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1592853042235572226 https://twitter.com/GedaliahWielgus/status/1592871376570167299 I don't know why people are getting psyched over this. The NY Post knows it cannot be a pro-Trump newspaper in NYC. They were promoting "none of the above" in 2016 but were also super happy to spout out untruths and half-truths against anyone left of Goldwater. The fact they're not on board the Trump train right now is not a surprise and I don't think it's particularly meaningful. How many people outside of NYC and Long Island read that newspaper anyway? Until Hannity and Carlson speak out against Trump on Fox News, Murdoch's disdain is going to mean jack squat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Is the NRSC change really punishment for this or punishment for how the midterms turned out? Or is that The joke is that he ran for Majority Leader instead of NRSC chair again, so that is why he has no leadership position anymore. It was pretty much always doomed to fail, but his hubris took him out. Alternative theory: He knew people would be coming after him over his time as NRSC chair and purposefully suicide bombed his leadership career because he thought it would be better to be a victim than get kicked out in an election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Republican caucus are not releasing the specific vote totals, but Lindsey Graham is the only Senator to publicly say he voted for Scott. Probably the same Trump lovers as always, Cruz, Hawley, Johnson, Lee, Tuberville, some class of 2018ers who see Trump as making or breaking their careers. I’m a little surprised they bothered to vote this way on a secret ballot tbh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Probably the same Trump lovers as always, Cruz, Hawley, Johnson, Lee, Tuberville, some class of 2018ers who see Trump as making or breaking their careers. Tuberville said he supported McConnell, but the rest are the likely culprits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Tuberville said he supported McConnell, but the rest are the likely culprits. Tubs may have still have accidentally voted for Scott.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
Diane has apparently let it be known internally that she is not running for re-election. https://twitter.com/sarahnferris/status/1592977190064365568
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
Floridian here. What blows my mind about Rick Scott challenging McConnell (and before that, releasing his idiotic policy proposals) was that Scott never struck me as a "true believer" while he was our governor. He always seemed more like a bog standard Republican ghoul rather than a far-right diehard. He didn't even endorse Donald Trump in 2016 until it was clear that he was going to be the nominee. Perhaps I just wasn't paying enough attention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
He doesn't have to be a true believer, just an opportunist. The period immediately after this election is likely the weakest McConnell will ever be
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
Tibeerius posted:Floridian here. What blows my mind about Rick Scott challenging McConnell (and before that, releasing his idiotic policy proposals) was that Scott never struck me as a "true believer" while he was our governor. He always seemed more like a bog standard Republican ghoul rather than a far-right diehard. He didn't even endorse Donald Trump in 2016 until it was clear that he was going to be the nominee. Perhaps I just wasn't paying enough attention. When he was Governor and a bunch of people came to FL from PR after Hurricane Maria, he spent all of his time trying to help those people. This was the same year he was also coincidentally running for Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
He's also a mega fraud elemental. Anything he gets charge of will be broke and on fire within a year, which is why I hoped he would get promoted after his masterful handling of the NRSC this cycle but I guess he made it a little too obvious that he was trying to move on before the audits started.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Tibeerius posted:Floridian here. What blows my mind about Rick Scott challenging McConnell (and before that, releasing his idiotic policy proposals) was that Scott never struck me as a "true believer" while he was our governor. He always seemed more like a bog standard Republican ghoul rather than a far-right diehard. He didn't even endorse Donald Trump in 2016 until it was clear that he was going to be the nominee. Perhaps I just wasn't paying enough attention. he reportedly thinks he can run for president in the future and views being anti-mcconnell as helpful for that he never actually thought he could unseat mcconnell, just wanted to visibly burn that bridge
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
It’s better than nothing I guess https://twitter.com/nikkimcr/status/1592990094591684608?s=46&t=g-vcK4JSGky8aYwT001QWw
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
The Verge just dropped the final part in their 6 month investigation into two decades of life under the Department of Homeland Security and it's completely ridiculous. It's also really long, (but very pro read) so below are a few highlights.https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1592923833677512704 quote:There was only one problem: BioWatch never functioned as intended. The devices were unreliable, causing numerous false positives. “It was really only capable of detecting large-scale attacks,” Albright explained, because of “how big a plume would have to be” for the sensors to pick it up. And the system was prohibitively slow: every 24 hours, someone had to retrieve a filter and then send it to a laboratory for testing, which might then take another 24 hours to discover a pathogen. quote:By 2019, the year after Americans heard audio of crying migrant children held in overcrowded cells, there were around 50,000 migrants detained in nearly 200 facilities across the United States on any given day. Many had arrived legally, had committed no crimes, and were waiting for asylum claims to be processed. The conditions at every facility holding an average of more than 50 people for more than 72 hours at a time, about 100 detention centers in total, have, for many years, been inspected and validated by a private company called The Nakamoto Group. quote:At other departments, reports from an inspector general’s office might get used by the congressional committees overseeing a given agency and its budget. But, as Hempowicz explained, “Almost every committee in Congress has jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security, and when almost everyone has jurisdiction, no one has jurisdiction.” -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Nov 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It’s better than nothing I guess "Respect for Marriage Act" really does sound like something that is supposed to be banning gay marriage, not codifying it
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:"Respect for Marriage Act" really does sound like something that is supposed to be banning gay marriage, not codifying it That's how they got two extra Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:"Respect for Marriage Act" really does sound like something that is supposed to be banning gay marriage, not codifying it It's codifying separate but equal, so close enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
I'm basically just hoping they leave Obergefell alone so it never matters, for blood pressure's sake. Maybe once, just once, we take the one step forward and then just keep going forward? it's america no, gently caress minorities of course we won't
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It’s better than nothing I guess USCE Autumn: It’s better than nothing I guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 01:11
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:USCE Autumn: It’s better than nothing I guess Second.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
I'd prefer Porter, but Schiff did very well in the impeachment trail https://twitter.com/ddayen/status/1593023042850287616?t=2eIlPiA_T2PPj31J31DLaw&s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Seyser Koze posted:It's codifying separate but equal, so close enough. It's more like it's codifying "states can refuse to do same-sex marriages, but they can't refuse to recognize other states' same-sex marriages". It really has nothing to do with "separate but equal" at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's more like it's codifying "states can refuse to do same-sex marriages, but they can't refuse to recognize other states' same-sex marriages". It really has nothing to do with "separate but equal" at all. Yeah I was reading the text of the document and was confused by that characterization. It just means that if you are married in one state then you are married in all states. Obviously "Obergefell But A Law" would be better but comparing it to segregation is buckwild. VVV Yes, I saw your walls of text. CuddleCryptid fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Nov 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
You two should read a few pages back, and that's all I'm going to say on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:The Verge just dropped the final part in their 6 month investigation into two decades of life under the Department of Homeland Security and it's completely ridiculous. It's never done anything productive and should be abolished, but it's now an entrenched bureaucracy so I don't see that ever happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:Yeah I was reading the text of the document and was confused by that characterization. It just means that if you are married in one state then you are married in all states. Obviously "Obergefell But A Law" would be better but comparing it to segregation is buckwild. "Obergfell but a law" would be pointless, since if Obergfell was struck down, that law would be too. The only way this law can have any positive effect in a post-reversal-of-Obergfell world is to advance a different legal argument for itself. This is really, really, not complicated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
Kenlon posted:"Obergfell but a law" would be pointless, since if Obergfell was struck down, that law would be too. The only way this law can have any positive effect in a post-reversal-of-Obergfell world is to advance a different legal argument for itself. I understand that. The ideal there would not be that Obergfell would be written word for word into the books, that would be stupid. Its effects, ie a national guarantee of the right to marry regardless of the gender of the participants, would be what actually got written down. It was a turn of phrase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 04:44
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:I understand that. The ideal there would not be that Obergfell would be written word for word into the books, that would be stupid. Its effects, ie a national guarantee of the right to marry regardless of the gender of the participants, would be what actually got written down. It was a turn of phrase. Congress can’t do that and if Congress tried to do that it could be overturned with Obergefell. The underlying constitutional authority is the court’s. Full faith and credit is the way around this. It’s why this was the proposed approach even back in 2009.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
The basic legal philosophy of Congress is that it can only enact laws within the very narrow scope of what it is constitutionally authorized to, and everything else must be left for the States to decide on their own. So if the court decides that the constitution says nothing about gay marriage, then Congress cannot pass a law regarding it one way or another. Or rather, any such law would immediately get struck down by the court. Which is why the best they can do is tell the States to play nice with each other, since interstate affairs are explicitly the domain of Congress. Obergefell was the result of the court taking a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is absolutely not a stable foundation if the court decides to change its mind tomorrow. Clarste fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Nov 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
I think it should be clarified the Respect for Marriage Act does not in anyway promise or entitle anyone to marriage of any kind. No state is really obligated to even have marriages if they don't want to. It is saying that it is illegal to discriminate against the union of monogamous relationships based on "sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals." And it's also enshrining an inclusive federal definition for marriage. The Legislature is in this case not in opposition to the 10th Amendment because they're not taking away the state's power over marriage, just stopping discrimination under the 14th Amendment . To me, I think the difference is that I could imagine the court bullshitting out a decision of how the marriage is not covered by the 14th Amendment while not removing protected class status for queer people, but I think repealing the Respect for Marriage Act is different because the Federal Government has been allowed to intervene in cases of discrimination even if it steps on the toes of the 10th Amendment. You would have to argue I think that gay people are not a protected class, and while I'm sure Thomas would love to do that, that actually isn't following the precedent of even the current court. Like I have no faith in the court at this point, and could be wrong, but I think at minimum, the Respect for Marriage Act is a bipartisan bill that even shitheads like Ted Cruz publicly didn't support not out of it being wrong, but unnecessary which is cowardly, but also shows how the pendulum has swung. It creates a clear precedent that elected officials do indeed support the rights of gay Americans, and the court for as lovely as it does not exist in a vacuum. And it at least makes repealing gay marriage into a legally thornier issue. In short, I think people painting the law as completely ineffective are imagining a more mechanical and logical system that exists. That might be true in the end, it also might have been pointless, but it's worth doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think people painting the law as completely ineffective are imagining a more mechanical and logical system that exists. Serious question: is there anyone in this thread, or in a link posted in this thread, actually making the argument that the law would be completely ineffective?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 05:42
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think it should be clarified the Respect for Marriage Act does not in anyway promise or entitle anyone to marriage of any kind. No state is really obligated to even have marriages if they don't want to. It is saying that it is illegal to discriminate against the union of monogamous relationships based on "sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals." And it's also enshrining an inclusive federal definition for marriage. The Legislature is in this case not in opposition to the 10th Amendment because they're not taking away the state's power over marriage, just stopping discrimination under the 14th Amendment . To add on to this, another reason it's important is because it would (finally!) overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which (among other things) explicitly protects states that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages conducted on other states. It basically waives full faith and credit for same-sex marriages. That section of DOMA was effectively rendered moot by Obergefell, but it's still on the books and would immediately go back into effect if Obergefell were to be overturned. But the Respect For Marriage Act would not only repeal DOMA, it would also explicitly guarantee full faith and credit. It'd be a big improvement over the pre-Obergefell landscape, at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 05:44
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Serious question: is there anyone in this thread, or in a link posted in this thread, actually making the argument that the law would be completely ineffective? Not that I've seen. I think people are stuck on the fact that it allows states to pass discriminatory laws, which is indeed pretty lovely. In short: Judgy Fucker posted:USCE Autumn: It’s better than nothing I guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 05:54
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:You would have to argue I think that gay people are not a protected class, and while I'm sure Thomas would love to do that, that actually isn't following the precedent of even the current court. Gay people are not a protected class and never have been. It's traditionally been folded into "gender stereotype discrimination" in that if you treat a gay man as "less manly" or whatever, then that is gender discrimination. But if they can pass perfectly as straight but just happen to have a boyfriend then it is perfectly legal to discriminate against them for being gay. Or at least that was the case 5-10 years ago; I haven't been following recent developments all that closely. I do know that there have been attempts to claim that "is heterosexual" is itself a gender stereotype, with limited success. So I don't think the current court would hesitate for even 2 seconds to clarify that they are not protected. Clarste fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Nov 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Gay people are not a protected class and never have been. It's traditionally been folded into "gender stereotype discrimination" in that if you treat a gay man as "less manly" or whatever, then that is gender discrimination. But if they can pass perfectly as straight but just happen to have a boyfriend then it is perfectly legal to discriminate against them for being gay. Or at least that was the case 5-10 years ago; I haven't been following recent developments all that closely. I do know that there have been attempts to claim that "is heterosexual" is itself a gender stereotype, with limited success. I believe you are out of date. the U.S. Supreme Court posted:“[I]n Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.” https://www.huntonlaborblog.com/202...gbtq-employees/
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 06:14
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Rick Scott's coup attempt to become Senate GOP leader is over in less than 24 hours. maybe Graham is like some cosmic corner stone for being the a big wuss and making decently stupid choices publicly all the time. like how than being a Senator with an R next to his name, what use is he to the regressive machine? Also what are the chances Daines also loves putting all that dark money in his own dark money sPAC network?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 06:16
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I believe you are out of date. Yeah, that's from 2 years ago. Legally speaking it is a fragile little baby, and they just overturned 50 year old Roe. Edit: Although I guess the idea is that not enough time has passed and the composition of the court is the same so it'd be hard to justify an about-face for no reason. Clarste fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Nov 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 06:30
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I believe you are out of date. If legal precedent was inviolate, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Nor, in fact, would Dobbs have been inflicted on us. What the Court decides, it may reverse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Kenlon posted:If legal precedent was inviolate, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Nor, in fact, would Dobbs have been inflicted on us. What the Court decides, it may reverse. No kidding. I never said otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 08:54
|
|