USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

House Republicans are giving up on passing a full national ban on abortion this year because they fear it will be too damaging in 2024 and not even become law anyway.

The new official policy is that it should be "left up to the states" and for members of congress to provide no comment about their opinion of various state-level restrictions because those are state issues. They will also attack Democratic policies on abortion as too extreme and criticize the "allowing abortion right up until delivery" position of Democrats who voted for the Women's Health Protection Act in 2021.

John Cornyn says that congressional Republicans never wanted to ban abortion at the federal level and repealing Roe v. Wade was always about federalism and getting the power back to the states:

quote:

�I think there is some confusion among the pro-life community as to what exactly we were asking for. In Roe versus Wade, we were asking that we go get the authority back to the states, and now people want to continue the fight here in Washington, and I disagree with that approach.�

https://twitter.com/AnnieGrayerCNN/status/1650148875930333184

quote:

House Republicans punt on national abortion ban amid fears of 2024 backlash

Washington CNN � House Republicans are abandoning a years-long push by their party to pass a federal abortion ban and are exploring other ways to advance their anti-abortion agenda � a remarkable shift that underscores how the GOP is wrestling with an issue that has become a political landmine for their party.

In interviews with dozens of Republicans, the vast majority � even among the staunchest opponents of abortion� rejected the idea of Congress pursuing a national ban and said leadership has no plans on the horizon for it to be a centerpiece of their agenda, despite passing federal restrictions on the procedure in previous years when they were in power.

Republicans say there�s a practical reason for their change in stance: After Roe v. Wade was overturned last summer, they argue that the question of whether to ban abortion is now best left to the states � a position that effectively, and perhaps conveniently, parks congressional Republicans on the sidelines of the national debate.

�You know, it works through committee, the Supreme Court has made that decision, it goes to the states, and states will take up that issue,� House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, said at a recent press conference when asked by CNN whether the House GOP will move any legislation on the matter.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a member of GOP leadership who has previously voted for abortion bans, expressed a similar sentiment: �I am proud of the votes I cast � but I don�t think it is appropriate for us now after Roe has been overruled to do this from Washington, D.C.�

Behind the scenes, Republicans acknowledge that the abortion ruling, Dobbs v. Jackson Women�s Health Organization, hurt the GOP in the midterm elections and they�re worried about a similar backlash in 2024 if they embrace a federal ban now that they�re in power.

It�s an eye-popping pivot for a party that has spent the last five decades ingratiating itself with the religious right, promising to use every lever of government to advance the anti-abortion cause. But it reflects a growing divide in the movement itself as advocates face a new chapter after Roe v. Wade was overturned, where states are serving as the test labs for laws rather than Congress.

There is a political risk, however, in letting states be in the driver�s seat. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a six-week abortion ban earlier this month and other states have outright banned the procedure, while a legal fight is playing out in the courts about whether women should continue to have access to a commonly used abortion pill. That�s fueling fears over whether these developments could be a drag on the entire Republican ticket next year, regardless of how hard congressional Republicans try to avoid questions about the matter.

GOP Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina � who represents a swing district and has been vocal about what she calls her party�s failure to effectively message on abortion � argued it�s not enough for Republicans to simply ignore the issue. She is pushing for legislation to expand access to birth control and speed up law enforcement�s backlog of rape kits in an effort to show voters the GOP cares about protecting women�s health care. GOP leadership is open to bringing legislation to the floor on the latter issue, according to Republican sources, if it can make it through the committee process.

�You can be pro-life and you can be pro-woman. The two are not mutually exclusive,� Mace told reporters. �We will not win the popular vote in �24 if we continue down this path of extremism.�

But not every Republican agrees. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the leading sponsor of a national 15-week abortion ban, is calling on his colleagues to have the �courage� to take up his legislation, exposing the lingering divisions in the GOP over the hot-button issue.

�I hope the Republican Party can muster the courage to oppose late-term abortion like we have done in the past. My legislation is a good place to start,� he said in a statement. �Like always, it includes exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. The Republican Party must be the party which values, cherishes, and protects life.�

�The states are the center of gravity on all of these debates�

When Republicans controlled the House, they passed The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, in 2012, 2015, and 2017.

After Roe was overturned last summer, the bill�s lead sponsor � Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey � said he planned to make the legislation even more restrictive by lowering it to 15 weeks. The idea attracted support from top Republicans, including McCarthy, at the time, though leadership never specifically committed to putting on the bill on the floor.

But after the midterms produced a slimmer-than-expected majority, there now appears to be little appetite inside the House GOP for such a bill. Smith has yet to reintroduce his legislation in this session of Congress, and even when he does, sources say, leadership has no intention of putting it on the floor. And it�s clear that some of the party�s most vulnerable members would be uncomfortable with, if not outright opposed to, such a bill.

New York freshman GOP Rep. Mike Lawler, who flipped his district from Democratic control and helped deliver the Republican majority, said he does not support a federal abortion ban but was also critical of Democrats� position on the issue.

�I think the extremes in both parties are wrong on this. Most Americans believe that there is a reasonable time period, and it generally falls in the first trimester,� Lawler told CNN. �When you look at this issue, most people want reasonableness and they want a rational discussion on it.�

Rep. David Valadao of California, one of the 18 Republicans who represents a Biden-won district, sought to avoid the subject altogether. �No comment,� he said when asked about Florida�s six-week ban.

GOP Rep. Don Bacon, whose Nebraska district also voted for Biden, told CNN, �The states are the center of gravity on all of these debates. I think that�s what Dobbs made possible.�

Conservative lawmakers shared a similar view.

Rep. Troy Nehls, a Republican from Texas, told CNN: �it�s up to the states,� when asked about a national ban. Freshman GOP Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida agreed, saying, �I think it�s a states� rights decision. I�m personally pro-life.�

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, said: �The result of the Dobbs decision is that decisions about abortion will be made at the state level by the voters.�

And Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri who identifies as �100% pro-life� and signed on last year to a bill to ban abortions after 15 weeks, argued that Congress needs to be sensitive to where the American public is on the issue and that a six-week ban doesn�t have that kind of support.

�My own view? I wish there weren�t abortions except for rape, incest and life of the mother, but do I think we should impose that ban at that level here now? I don�t, because that is not the national consensus,� Hawley said. �Voters are weighing in in state after state. Let�s let them do that unless there is a really broad consensus.�

Their position is in line with that of former President Donald Trump, who also recently called abortion a state issue � a comment that prompted the ire of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which is pushing for presidential nominees to endorse a 15-week ban.

Cornyn touched on the confusion after last summer�s court ruling, saying, �I think there is some confusion among the pro-life community as to what exactly we were asking for. In Roe versus Wade, we were asking that we go get the authority back to the states, and now people want to continue the fight here in Washington, and I disagree with that approach.�

Republicans turn to �incremental� anti-abortion goals

In the absence of pursuing a federal ban, and under pressure from powerful anti-abortion groups, Republicans have sought to deliver on the issue in other ways.

Earlier this year, the House passed two messaging bills related to abortion: one that would require health care providers to try to preserve the life of an infant in the rare case that a fetus is born alive during or after an attempted abortion, something that is already required, and another that condemns �recent attacks on pro-life facilities, groups and churches.�

Both measures, which are going nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate, were seen as low-hanging fruit.

Meanwhile, a narrow bill prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions that House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana promised would get a vote in the first two weeks of the Republican majority has still not been scheduled.

Now, lawmakers are largely turning their energy to the appropriations process, and specifically the efforts to reenact the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funds from being used for most abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the woman�s life is in danger.

While the amendment is annually included in spending bills, groups like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and the National Right to Life Committee are pushing GOP leadership to put a bill on the floor that would make the provision permanent.

The National Right to Life Committee said it is in regular communication with House Republican leadership about possible legislative efforts and educational needs on the issue.

�What we�re working on right now is primarily reacquainting members with the abortion issue after the Dobbs decision. This is a very dramatically different landscape,� the group�s federal legislative director, Jennifer Popik, told CNN.

Popik, who characterized her organization�s goals as �incremental,� acknowledged that after the Dobbs decision, �everybody became sort of concerned� about what options were no longer available.

E.V. Osment, vice president of communications for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, is advising Republican lawmakers to not shy away from the topic, arguing it can be a political winner for them if they go on offense and highlight exactly where they stand.

�It is imperative that Republicans stand up and speak out on this and not let their opponents define them,� Osment said. �Republican candidates excel when they expose their opponents� no-limits approach to abortion.�

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Apr 24, 2023

# ? Apr 24, 2023 14:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 08:08

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I think this is more �we know this is politically toxic and we will pass this if we win but we aren�t going to talk about it�

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:06

cr0y: Mar 24, 2005

Lol they aren't going to stop trying to outright ban abortion, they are just gonna take a break until some of the heat is off and they clinche whatever power they can get in 2024.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:09

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Even if they take back the Senate, Republicans aren't going to kill the filibuster to pass a national abortion ban, because they know the filibuster is a major barrier to the economic and electoral reforms that they want to avoid at all costs, and with no filibuster those policies would be more likely to pass in the medium term.

Republicans want to ban abortion nationally but can't. Their choices are to pretend that they can ban abortion, or to pretend that they don't want to. For years they've taken the former approach but now they think it's smarter to take the latter. It's not going to be easy, because of how thoroughly they've branded themselves as an anti-abortion party, and because elements within the party will continue to push more extreme policies at the state and national level regardless of what Mitch and Kevin and Ronna McDaniel want.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:19

kdrudy: Sep 19, 2009

Mellow Seas posted:

Even if they take back the Senate, Republicans aren't going to kill the filibuster to pass a national abortion ban, because they know the filibuster is a major barrier to the economic and electoral reforms that they want to avoid at all costs, and with no filibuster those policies would be more likely to pass in the medium term.

Republicans want to ban abortion nationally but can't. Their choices are to pretend that they [i]can/i] ban abortion, or to pretend that they don't want to. For years they've taken the former approach but now they think it's smarter to take the latter. It's not going to be easy, because of how thoroughly they've branded themselves as an anti-abortion party, and because elements within the party will continue to push more extreme policies at the state and national level regardless of what Mitch and Kevin and Ronna McDaniel want.

Of course they are, then they'll reinstate it immediately and act like anyone even thinking of removing the filibuster is removing a cornerstone of democracy.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:22

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

kdrudy posted:

Of course they are, then they'll reinstate it immediately and act like anyone even thinking of removing the filibuster is removing a cornerstone of democracy.

Or they�ll just wait until SCOTUS kills abortion for them

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:23

Judgy Fucker: Mar 24, 2006

kdrudy posted:

Of course they are, then they'll reinstate it immediately and act like anyone even thinking of removing the filibuster is removing a cornerstone of democracy.

Yeah, I hadn't really thought of it, but I think you're right. Kill the filibuster for two years when they next have a trifecta, then pull the ladder up behind them right before they lose the Senate and dare the decorum-poisoned Democrats to do the same as them. It's the exact same logic as McConnell refusing to hear Garland's appointment to the SCOTUS: sure, the Democrats could pull the same maneuver on us, but they won't, so why shouldn't we do this?

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:28

FLIPADELPHIA: Apr 27, 2007; Heavy Shit; Grimey Drawer

Mellow Seas posted:

Even if they take back the Senate, Republicans aren't going to kill the filibuster to pass a national abortion ban, because they know the filibuster is a major barrier to the economic and electoral reforms that they want to avoid at all costs, and with no filibuster those policies would be more likely to pass in the medium term.

Republicans want to ban abortion nationally but can't. Their choices are to pretend that they can ban abortion, or to pretend that they don't want to. For years they've taken the former approach but now they think it's smarter to take the latter. It's not going to be easy, because of how thoroughly they've branded themselves as an anti-abortion party, and because elements within the party will continue to push more extreme policies at the state and national level regardless of what Mitch and Kevin and Ronna McDaniel want.

This is just shockingly naive. Not trying to be mean but, you do realize that these are fascists you're talking about, right? Not only are they incapable of shame, but the idea that they are itself represents their greatest asset. They are liars to their very core.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:31

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

This is just shockingly naive. Not trying to be mean but, you do realize that these are fascists you're talking about, right? Not only are they incapable of shame, but the idea that they are itself represents their greatest asset. They are liars to their very core.

How is it naive? (Let alone "shockingly" so?) I don't think it's naive to think that national-level Republicans care more about stopping things like DC statehood, universal absentee voting, felon re-enfranchisement, wealth taxes and increased social welfare spending than they care about passing national versions of abortion laws that are already in place in the states where they're popular.

Yes, their goal is to have unlimited, eternal control of the Senate, and the structure of the Senate makes that a plausible goal for them, but they are not going to achieve that goal in the next couple of cycles, and so they would have to consider what Democrats would do when they get the chamber back. And leaving the filibuster in place works fine for the GOP because their only real priorities, spending cuts and tax cuts, can already be passed via reconciliation.

(And no, Republicans can't just kill the filibuster and say "just kidding, it's back on" and expect Democrats to go along with that when they are back in the majority. Yes sure, "Dems are wimps" or whatever, but that's just not how politics works at all. That's not how anything works.)

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:45

Judgy Fucker: Mar 24, 2006

Mellow Seas posted:

(And no, Republicans can't just kill the filibuster and say "just kidding, it's back on" and expect Democrats to go along with that when they are back in the majority. Yes sure, "Dems are wimps" or whatever, but that's just not how politics works at all. That's not how anything works.)

Why not? Do you believe Democrats would be willing to steal a SCOTUS seat like McConnell or no?

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:51

PhazonLink: Jul 17, 2010

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

House Republicans are giving up on passing a full national ban on abortion this year because they fear it will be too damaging in 2024 and not even become law anyway.
....

the 2024 Oct Surprise is going to them trying to push a thing.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:51

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

No way they'll actually kill abortion, they care about fundraising more.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:51

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

Gumball Gumption posted:

No way they'll actually kill abortion, they care about fundraising more.

Never think this. They will try to kill abortion and then find the next thing to repeal. No more hormonal birth control would be next.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:55

Angry_Ed: Mar 30, 2010; Grimey Drawer

As more and more absolute lunatics get elected in the Republican Party, the more likely it is that they will actually believe (or believe even harder I guess) the bullshit the old guard sold them on and actually do things like outlaw abortion. Do not, under any circumstances, think that the Republican Party has any idea what it is truly doing anymore outside of a basic desire to hurt people who aren't them.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:58

the_steve: Nov 9, 2005; We're always hiring!

Gumball Gumption posted:

No way they'll actually kill abortion, they care about fundraising more.

I dunno. I would never in a million years have believed they would manage to overturn Roe v. Wade, but here we are in that million-and-first year.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:59

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

Mooseontheloose posted:

Never think this. They will try to kill abortion and then find the next thing to repeal. No more hormonal birth control would be next.

Nah, I'm with you. That's really my point. Everyone thought we wouldn't be in the current situation because they knew that the Republicans were bluffing because they're rational actors pulling a scam. Except they're not, they are a couple generations into true believers who are ideologically driven and there are just as many in on the scam who wouldn't try to kill the filibuster or abortion as there are those who absolutely would go for those ideological wins.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:59

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Judgy Fucker posted:

Why not? Do you believe Democrats would be willing to steal a SCOTUS seat like McConnell or no?

I don't know, maybe? They haven't really been put in that position.

I don't think it's the same thing, anyway. We already have an example of McConnell killing a type of filibuster (for SCOTUS nominees) and Democrats declining to put it back in place. We also have an example of Dems killing a type of filibuster themselves (for other judicial nominees). What we don't have is any examples of filibusters being killed and then put back into place.

If the Democrats actually acted the way that is being suggested here, the GOP could have put judicial and SCOTUS filibusters back in place with a rule change during the lame duck before Biden's term began, which would have prevented Biden's many, many judge appointments and his appointment of KBJ. They didn't do that because they knew the first thing Schumer would do once when he was majority leader is just remove the filibuster rules again.

Gumball Gumption posted:

Nah, I'm with you. That's really my point. Everyone thought we wouldn't be in the current situation because they knew that the Republicans were bluffing because they're rational actors pulling a scam. Except they're not, they are a couple generations into true believers who are ideologically driven and there are just as many in on the scam who wouldn't try to kill the filibuster or abortion as there are those who absolutely would go for those ideological wins.

Scorched-earth opposition to abortion is something Republicans have been doing out out of "rationality" as it keeps a large group of voters constantly enthusiastic and completely devoted to them. But 2022 and other elections since Dobbs suggest that it's turning more voters against them than it's getting them, and so it could be "rational" for the party to back off a bit.

Yes, of course, there are absolutely people who are true believers, like I said, and they are going to seriously hamstring any effort by party leaders to act like the party isn't going to keep pushing.

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Apr 24, 2023

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:01

TheDisreputableDog: Oct 13, 2005

Judgy Fucker posted:

Yeah, I hadn't really thought of it, but I think you're right. Kill the filibuster for two years when they next have a trifecta, then pull the ladder up behind them right before they lose the Senate and dare the decorum-poisoned Democrats to do the same as them. It's the exact same logic as McConnell refusing to hear Garland's appointment to the SCOTUS: sure, the Democrats could pull the same maneuver on us, but they won't, so why shouldn't we do this?

Well, this take ignores that fact that the �decorum poisoned� Dems set the stage by allowing Senate rules to be changed by a simple majority to begin with, to say nothing of the fact that they then unilaterally made federal judiciary appointments filibuster-free. This fiction that the left are feckless or overly beholden to the rules is a fig leaf for the fact that they don�t want to do the leftist thing and deal with the fallout.

They could have easily made abortion legal nationally, they just didn�t want to.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:03

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

TheDisreputableDog posted:

They could have easily made abortion legal nationally, they just didn�t want to.

Do you think SCOTUS wouldn't have declared that law unconstitutional?

And, of course, there are at least two Dems who won't kill the filibuster, so even if the other 49 were united in wanting to pass an abortion law that would be quickly struck down, to make a point - which, to be clear, I think would be a good idea - they can't pass it. But the continued existence of the filibuster and how it reflects on the priorities of "The Democrats" is a conversation we've had a lot so I don't want to get all that deep into it...

e: The Women's Health Protection Act has been reintroduced in the current Senate with 49 Democrats cosponsoring. If Republicans came out with a bill and 49 of their Senators supported it, would we say that such a bill wasn't a real priority for the party?

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Apr 24, 2023

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:06

Automata 10 Pack: Jun 21, 2007; Ten games published by Automata, on one cassette

Mellow Seas posted:

Do you think SCOTUS wouldn't have declared that law unconstitutional?

Pull a FDR, ignore the ruling and threaten to pack the court.

Or, you know, try anything other than to ask for donations so we can "vote 'em out."

Automata 10 Pack fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Apr 24, 2023

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:14

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

Automata 10 Pack posted:

Pull a FDR, ignore the ruling and threaten to pack the court.

The constitutional lawyers in the crowd probably have a better understanding of what I am about to say, so if I am wrong apologies. I thought there was a legal theory that Congress could just say this law is not reviewable by the supreme court as it exists outside of original jurisdiction. I know there was some talk of that during marriage equity that the Democrats could pass a law making marriage equal for hetero and homosexual couples and lockout the courts that way. In this way, Congress does have a check on a run away supreme court. Something about the clause that allows Congress to decide the size and scope of the courts.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:19

Automata 10 Pack: Jun 21, 2007; Ten games published by Automata, on one cassette

It'll be really funny if Trump continues to attack the Republican establishment from the pro-choice position in the Republican party and finds himself as the more actively pro-choice candidate than Biden, who can't even muster to legislate even after the "historic" 2022 midterm victory.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:22

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Automata 10 Pack posted:

Pull a FDR, ignore the ruling and threaten to pack the court.

How would you "ignore the ruling" exactly? The state laws would still be in place and enforced by the states, with the federal government having no legal authority (or, for that matter, any feasible method) to prevent them from doing so.

And it's just hard to do with a narrow majority, obviously, especially when two of the Senators in your "majority caucus" of 51 are openly funded by conservative donors.

Obviously when FDR ~~did~~ tried it, it worked out okay for him, despite a pretty serious backlash that lost his party 72 seats in the House, and lost the pro-New Deal caucus's majority, because it had an effect of intimidating the existing court into being more amenable to his policies. (Also, by the time he died, he had appointed eight of the nine justices on the court.) I don't think court packing would be any more or less popular today - that is to say, it would be opposed by the public, but by a fairly narrow majority, heavily along party lines. But I'm not optimistic that such a threat would move today's justices, who are more ideologically "pure" than those of the depression era.

Automata 10 Pack posted:

Pull a FDR, ignore the ruling and threaten to pack the court.

Or, you know, try anything other than to ask for donations so we can "vote 'em out."

Roe was overturned because of the results of elections, so the suggestion that abortion protections can't be put back in place via elections is absolute nonsense. Like, things are hard to do with incredibly narrow majorities. The GOP couldn't repeal Obamacare with the majority the Dems have now and that was all they had talked about for six years.

Automata 10 Pack posted:

It'll be really funny if Trump continues to attack the Republican establishment from the pro-choice position in the Republican party and finds himself as the more actively pro-choice candidate than Biden, who can't even muster to legislate even after the "historic" 2022 midterm victory.

You wanna throw down another twenty bucks on this?

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Apr 24, 2023

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:26

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!; Pillbug

Mooseontheloose posted:

The constitutional lawyers in the crowd probably have a better understanding of what I am about to say, so if I am wrong apologies. I thought there was a legal theory that Congress could just say this law is not reviewable by the supreme court as it exists outside of original jurisdiction. I know there was some talk of that during marriage equity that the Democrats could pass a law making marriage equal for hetero and homosexual couples and lockout the courts that way. In this way, Congress does have a check on a run away supreme court. Something about the clause that allows Congress to decide the size and scope of the courts.

One point about this legal theory: SCOTUS would get to rule over whether Congress actually has the power to put a law outside of SCOTUS review, so functionally it's no different from "why not just everyone ignore the courts?"

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:30

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

Mooseontheloose posted:

The constitutional lawyers in the crowd probably have a better understanding of what I am about to say, so if I am wrong apologies. I thought there was a legal theory that Congress could just say this law is not reviewable by the supreme court as it exists outside of original jurisdiction. I know there was some talk of that during marriage equity that the Democrats could pass a law making marriage equal for hetero and homosexual couples and lockout the courts that way. In this way, Congress does have a check on a run away supreme court. Something about the clause that allows Congress to decide the size and scope of the courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

quote:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This is generally held to say what you say- that Congress is allowed to exempt any and all areas of law from judicial scrutiny that are not explicitly listed in the first half of the clause

Killer robot posted:

One point about this legal theory: SCOTUS would get to rule over whether Congress actually has the power to put a law outside of SCOTUS review, so functionally it's no different from "why not just everyone ignore the courts?"

It's functionally different in that the Constitution explicitly says that Congress can do this, and the court has upheld and complied with that power in the past. If they reverse themselves, if Congress strips a jurisdiction and they say "nuh uh, we're ruling on it anyway", we have a crisis

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:35

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Killer robot posted:

One point about this legal theory: SCOTUS would get to rule over whether Congress actually has the power to put a law outside of SCOTUS review, so functionally it's no different from "why not just everyone ignore the courts?"

No, Article III pretty clearly states that congress can limit the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in certain classes of cases, but can't dictate the outcomes of individual cases or be too specific. The issue would be how to make it narrowly tailored for abortion without accidentally throwing a bunch of other types of cases outside of the jurisdiction of federal courts.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:37

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

Automata 10 Pack posted:

It'll be really funny if Trump continues to attack the Republican establishment from the pro-choice position in the Republican party and finds himself as the more actively pro-choice candidate than Biden, who can't even muster to legislate even after the "historic" 2022 midterm victory.

you do realize that Donald Trump said women should be jailed for having abortions right? Or that the House overwhelmingly passed abortion protections?

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:38

Dick Trauma: Nov 30, 2007; God damn it, you've got to be kind.

It appears that Tucker Carlson got canned. I can't understand why Fox would give the boot to their money-printing machine.

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1650523507795566592?s=20

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1650522522578739202?s=20

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1650523748326309888?s=20

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:38

FizFashizzle: Mar 30, 2005

Part of the dominion settlement?

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:39

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

When you cost the boss $787m....

Still, this is stunning, he's far and away the biggest draw on Fox and probably the biggest white nationalist voice in America. There is no bigger platform for him than Fox News, this is going to have a massive positive effect on political discourse in the US.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:39

Class3KillStorm: Feb 17, 2011

Dick Trauma posted:

It appears that Tucker Carlson got canned. I can't understand why Fox would give the boot to their money-printing machine.

Bitch bye

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:40

Morrow: Oct 31, 2010

zoux posted:

When you cost the boss $787m....

Still, this is stunning, he's far and away the biggest draw on Fox and probably the biggest white nationalist voice in America. There is no bigger platform for him than Fox News, this is going to have a massive positive effect on political discourse in the US.

We said the same thing after Beck or Hannity. There will be a new Muppet in the same timeslot spouting the same rhetoric.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:40

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Mooseontheloose posted:

you do realize that Donald Trump said women should be jailed for having abortions right? Or that the House overwhelmingly passed abortion protections?

I mean, is saying that women should be jailed for having abortions really more anti-abortion than... not being able to get a law through a Congress that doesn't support it? I guess we'll see what the public thinks. (We know what they think.)

I mean what, people are going to think Joe Biden supports abortion rights just because his DOJ has sued to stop anti-abortion laws, and because he appointed a pro-abortion SCOTUS justice and dozens of pro-abortion judges at lower levels, and because he is constantly talking about the importance of abortion rights? Forget it, he didn't use mind control to pass a law!

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Apr 24, 2023

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:41

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Morrow posted:

We said the same thing after Beck or Hannity. There will be a new Muppet in the same timeslot spouting the same rhetoric.

And where is Glenn Beck these days...

Carlson was a unique draw for these people, there's no nihilist spin you can give it that will make this less than what it is: a massive shift in American political discourse and an insane L for Fox News. There is no platform for Tucker greater than the one he had on Fox.

They aren't even giving him a farewell show, his rear end is fired.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:42

Prism: Dec 22, 2007; yospos

Dick Trauma posted:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1650523748326309888?s=20

Always take screenshots. This is gone.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:42

DynamicSloth: Jul 30, 2006; "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

Uhhh there's no chance he's running is there?

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:44

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

FizFashizzle posted:

Part of the dominion settlement?

Morrow posted:

We said the same thing after Beck or Hannity. There will be a new Muppet in the same timeslot spouting the same rhetoric.

I think it is likely those two factors. We probably won't ever know exactly what if they don't make it public.

But, Bill O'Reilly/Glenn Beck/Judge Piro or whoever were their big moneymakers too. It is probably part of the dominion settlement/being the most public face of the group that cost them almost $800 million. I'm sure they will find someone who will replace them. The silver lining is that it is probably going to be impossible to find someone who is willing to go as far as Tucker did with his wild white supremacist normalization.

Returning to Hannity-style partisan Republican and "immigration/urban decay" dog whistling during prime time is probably an effective improvement, but there will still be tons of lovely things aired on Fox in the coming years.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:47

virtualboyCOLOR: Dec 22, 2004

FizFashizzle posted:

Part of the dominion settlement?

Did any of the major personalities mention, on air, a mea culpa in reference to Dominion? Could have been part of the settlement and Fox is terminating anyone that doesn�t comply. Pure speculation.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:52

is pepsi ok: Oct 23, 2002

Automata 10 Pack posted:

It'll be really funny if Trump continues to attack the Republican establishment from the pro-choice position in the Republican party and finds himself as the more actively pro-choice candidate than Biden, who can't even muster to legislate even after the "historic" 2022 midterm victory.

I definitely wouldn't frame it as pro choice, but he absolutely has broken from the Republican establishment messaging on abortion, specifically that overturning Roe was a (political) mistake and that from here everything should be left up to the states. The latter got him some blowback from pro-life groups who want to push for a national ban.

It's a smart political move that puts him at odds with the Republican establishment and in line with the majority of Republican voters.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 08:08

Charliegrs: Aug 10, 2009

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

I think it is likely those two factors. We probably won't ever know exactly what if they don't make it public.

But, Bill O'Reilly/Glenn Beck/Judge Piro or whoever were their big moneymakers too. It is probably part of the dominion settlement/being the most public face of the group that cost them almost $800 million. I'm sure they will find someone who will replace them. The silver lining is that it is probably going to be impossible to find someone who is willing to go as far as Tucker did with his wild white supremacist normalization.

Returning to Hannity-style partisan Republican and "immigration/urban decay" dog whistling during prime time is probably an effective improvement, but there will still be tons of lovely things aired on Fox in the coming years.

Laura Ingraham is still on Fox right? Pretty sure she's a barely closeted Nazi. She will probably get Tuckers spot.

# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:52

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »