Author Topic: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )  (Read 318690 times)


ATtiny85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1851 on: September 29, 2022, 09:51:46 AM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/28/biden-walorski-hunger-conference/

Hate it when that happens...

So many people, so many topics.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7351
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1852 on: September 29, 2022, 09:55:05 AM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/28/biden-walorski-hunger-conference/

Hate it when that happens...

So many people, so many topics.

Yeah, this unfortunately is something that could happen to anyone with a humongous list of professional acquaintances and colleagues.
I have seen this happen before in a professional setting. It was very awkward. But it was not the result of cognitive decline.

jinga nation

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2707
  • Age: 247
  • Location: 'Murica's Dong
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1853 on: September 29, 2022, 10:10:19 AM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/28/biden-walorski-hunger-conference/

Hate it when that happens...

So many people, so many topics.

Yeah, this unfortunately is something that could happen to anyone with a humongous list of professional acquaintances and colleagues.
I have seen this happen before in a professional setting. It was very awkward. But it was not the result of cognitive decline.

I've asked cousins on the health of their parents or grandparents, and cringed hard when i was told they'd passed away. Completely was out of my mind. And then I've been asked by distant relatives on the health of my mum or grandma, and said they were deceased. It happens.
Completely understand that 46, who's been in politics for so long, having known so many, made a simple slip-up.
It happens, move on. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2658
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1854 on: September 29, 2022, 10:57:31 AM »
It was very awkward. But it was not the result of cognitive decline.

When these award moments happen on a regular basis to a 79-year-old, it's pretty hard to not attribute it to cognitive decline.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1855 on: September 29, 2022, 11:18:07 AM »
It was very awkward. But it was not the result of cognitive decline.

When these award moments happen on a regular basis to a 79-year-old, it's pretty hard to not attribute it to cognitive decline.

As only a slight aside my roommate loves Biden because he thinks that he is in cognitive decline. The roommate is a moderate and figures that nothing too bad is going to happen to the country when an addled moderate is in charge.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1856 on: September 29, 2022, 11:28:27 AM »
It was very awkward. But it was not the result of cognitive decline.

When these award moments happen on a regular basis to a 79-year-old, it's pretty hard to not attribute it to cognitive decline.

Maybe it depends what you mean by cognitive decline. He's not as sharp at 79 as he once was, sure, but it's also not like it's clear evidence of dementia. Biden has a long history of saying stupid shit at every age.


talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1857 on: September 29, 2022, 11:54:28 AM »
Man, sure would be nice if there was some kind of test we could give an elderly man to assess this cognition. Something that could be compared to the last President? Maybe one where you show the ability to memorize a list as a task for evaluation?

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2658
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1858 on: September 29, 2022, 11:58:16 AM »
It was very awkward. But it was not the result of cognitive decline.

When these award moments happen on a regular basis to a 79-year-old, it's pretty hard to not attribute it to cognitive decline.

Maybe it depends what you mean by cognitive decline. He's not as sharp at 79 as he once was, sure, but it's also not like it's clear evidence of dementia. Biden has a long history of saying stupid shit at every age.

I know there's no clear bright line for this. It's not like a question of declining eyesight or hearing where there are clear, simple, and objective tests. At what point does being "not as sharp" become a serious issue for single most powerful person on Earth?

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3104
  • she/her
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1859 on: September 29, 2022, 12:31:30 PM »
It was very awkward. But it was not the result of cognitive decline.

When these award moments happen on a regular basis to a 79-year-old, it's pretty hard to not attribute it to cognitive decline.

Maybe it depends what you mean by cognitive decline. He's not as sharp at 79 as he once was, sure, but it's also not like it's clear evidence of dementia. Biden has a long history of saying stupid shit at every age.

I know there's no clear bright line for this. It's not like a question of declining eyesight or hearing where there are clear, simple, and objective tests. At what point does being "not as sharp" become a serious issue for single most powerful person on Earth?

You say you know there's no clear bright line, but then you ask for a "point"?  I'm not sure how your second question ameliorates the issues in the framing of the first. 

I definitely don't believe there's anything that could be specified (at least until we are way way past any gray area, like if a President was declared "brain dead") objectively for this and of course, this is just one type of thing that could disqualify a president from office.  Coming up with a "point" of specificity or a line for all of them isn't possible or desirable.  Instead we have processes where a collective of humans make the best judgments they can under the circumstances.  One of those processes is the 25th Amendment.  Another is impeachment and removal from office.

Perhaps I've answered your question in a roundabout way.  The "point" at which "being "not as sharp" become a serious issue for single most powerful person on Earth" is when those people invoke one or more of those processes.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1860 on: September 29, 2022, 12:52:56 PM »
woman man person camera tv?

sonofsven

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2052
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1861 on: September 29, 2022, 01:27:10 PM »
woman man person camera tv?
You've got my vote!

talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1862 on: September 29, 2022, 02:44:59 PM »
It was very awkward. But it was not the result of cognitive decline.

When these award moments happen on a regular basis to a 79-year-old, it's pretty hard to not attribute it to cognitive decline.

Maybe it depends what you mean by cognitive decline. He's not as sharp at 79 as he once was, sure, but it's also not like it's clear evidence of dementia. Biden has a long history of saying stupid shit at every age.

I know there's no clear bright line for this. It's not like a question of declining eyesight or hearing where there are clear, simple, and objective tests. At what point does being "not as sharp" become a serious issue for single most powerful person on Earth?

You say you know there's no clear bright line, but then you ask for a "point"?  I'm not sure how your second question ameliorates the issues in the framing of the first. 

I definitely don't believe there's anything that could be specified (at least until we are way way past any gray area, like if a President was declared "brain dead") objectively for this and of course, this is just one type of thing that could disqualify a president from office.  Coming up with a "point" of specificity or a line for all of them isn't possible or desirable.  Instead we have processes where a collective of humans make the best judgments they can under the circumstances.  One of those processes is the 25th Amendment.  Another is impeachment and removal from office.

Perhaps I've answered your question in a roundabout way.  The "point" at which "being "not as sharp" become a serious issue for single most powerful person on Earth" is when those people invoke one or more of those processes.

We've had three impeachments over the past twenty-six years, and all three appeared doomed from the start. I wonder what kind of situation it would take for an impeachment to be successful.

Perhaps we'll learn soon.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1863 on: September 29, 2022, 04:15:24 PM »
I wonder what kind of situation it would take for an impeachment to be successful.

If we study the two successful impeachments that have ever occurred, we come up with only two clear ways to be impeached:
- lying about getting a blowjob from a subordinate (Clinton)
- dismissing a cabinet secretary without congressional approval (Johnson)


Anything else you do as president of the US is OK.

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3104
  • she/her
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1864 on: September 29, 2022, 06:10:53 PM »
I wonder what kind of situation it would take for an impeachment to be successful.

If we study the two successful impeachments that have ever occurred, we come up with only two clear ways to be impeached:
- lying about getting a blowjob from a subordinate (Clinton)
- dismissing a cabinet secretary without congressional approval (Johnson)


Anything else you do as president of the US is OK.

Wait, why were those two "successful" and neither of Trump's impeachments were?  None of the 4 ended up with removal from office, but successful impeachment by the House.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1865 on: September 29, 2022, 06:15:04 PM »
Yeah the only successful impeachment would be the theoretical one that would've been against Nixon. Johnson's failed by 1 vote. The other 3 we're doomed from the start

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1866 on: September 29, 2022, 06:44:11 PM »
I wonder what kind of situation it would take for an impeachment to be successful.

If we study the two successful impeachments that have ever occurred, we come up with only two clear ways to be impeached:
- lying about getting a blowjob from a subordinate (Clinton)
- dismissing a cabinet secretary without congressional approval (Johnson)


Anything else you do as president of the US is OK.

Wait, why were those two "successful" and neither of Trump's impeachments were?  None of the 4 ended up with removal from office, but successful impeachment by the House.

Woah.  I totally blanked on Trump.  It just seems like there's never any repercussion for any action he ever takes.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17582
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1867 on: September 29, 2022, 07:06:37 PM »
I wonder what kind of situation it would take for an impeachment to be successful.

If we study the two successful impeachments that have ever occurred, we come up with only two clear ways to be impeached:
- lying about getting a blowjob from a subordinate (Clinton)
- dismissing a cabinet secretary without congressional approval (Johnson)


Anything else you do as president of the US is OK.
Seems like some faulty logic there…

talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1868 on: September 30, 2022, 07:35:20 AM »
For the record, Johnson's position in 1868 was ultimately ratified when SCOTUS struck down the law that he violated when he fired that cabinet secretary.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6656
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1869 on: October 13, 2022, 05:00:14 AM »
Biden asked Saudi Arabia to delay their planned oil production cuts until after the U.S. mid-term elections.  If voters are going to experience pain, he doesn't want them voting on it?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17582
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1870 on: October 13, 2022, 05:26:14 AM »
Biden asked Saudi Arabia to delay their planned oil production cuts until after the U.S. mid-term elections.  If voters are going to experience pain, he doesn't want them voting on it?
Seems like a typical political strategy. One could also argue that even a short postponement of planned cuts could help reduce inflation and weaken Russia’s war machine heading into the winter.  In the long term cheap oil is bad for our planet.

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2846
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1871 on: October 13, 2022, 10:48:06 AM »
Biden asked Saudi Arabia to delay their planned oil production cuts until after the U.S. mid-term elections.  If voters are going to experience pain, he doesn't want them voting on it?
Seems like a typical political strategy. One could also argue that even a short postponement of planned cuts could help reduce inflation and weaken Russia’s war machine heading into the winter.  In the long term cheap oil is bad for our planet.

Russia is selling oil for far below market price so lower prices don't matter when you can literally pump money out of the ground. 

The 1MM / day production cut described as market manipulation by the administration simply offsets the 1MM /day withdrawals from the SPR foe the last six months but apparently is not market manipulation.   Simply giving assurances, ie passed legislation, to oil companies and refineries that new investments they make will be protected and safe to drill, pump and refine more foe the foreseeable future (basically get a ROI).   But that can't happen due to politics and is why he went hat in hand begging on his knees to the middle east......which blew up in his face.

Oil may be bad for the environment but it is needed for the economy until a thoughtful elongated transmission can happen.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3693
  • Location: Germany
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1872 on: October 13, 2022, 11:14:00 AM »
Oil may be bad for the environment but it is needed for the economy until a thoughtful elongated transmission can happen.
The Kyoto Protocol is from 1994. That's already quite prolongated.

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2846
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1873 on: October 13, 2022, 12:35:28 PM »
Oil may be bad for the environment but it is needed for the economy until a thoughtful elongated transmission can happen.
The Kyoto Protocol is from 1994. That's already quite prolongated.

Failure of either party to take any legitimate action in the past still does not negate the fact that any transition can be immediate and abrupt in the present, especially in light of the fact that the infrastructure, availability, technology and affordability is yet adequate for mass market or the economy as a whole. And that is a policy failure.

Some heavy subsidies that decrease over time and some taxes or fees that increase over time to exorbitant levels.  A 10-15 year period probably makes sense and the increase and decreases can be proportional or exponential to incentivize or force change.   It also has to be passed into law and not some 2 year expiring tax credit as it will make it harder to change going forward.   

That way there is a known pain coming but time either now or in the future to develop, plan and pay for the changes. 




PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1874 on: October 13, 2022, 01:44:13 PM »
Oil may be bad for the environment but it is needed for the economy until a thoughtful elongated transmission can happen.
The Kyoto Protocol is from 1994. That's already quite prolongated.

"The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution." - Milton Freedman, 1979 (note: he was talking about air pollution in general, not carbon emissions in specific) Added here mostly because he was pretty far to the right in terms of pro-capitalism. And also completely correct that you should price in your externalities.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/10/12/what-would-milton-friedman-do-about-climate-change-tax-carbon/

talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1875 on: October 13, 2022, 02:21:37 PM »
Yeah, Friedman was far to the right for his time, which meant supporting the party whose President had created the EPA only eight years earlier.

Examining today's politics, I do not see how Republican unity in the Federal government in 2025 will get us anything like this externality tax that you propose (and which I would support).

Shane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
  • Location: Midtown
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1876 on: October 13, 2022, 03:10:06 PM »
Of course, Friedman was right 40+ years ago. If people who insist on driving everywhere in gigantic cars and trucks, flying all over the place in planes, cranking up their thermostats to 80F in the winter, and turning them down to 60F in the summer, if they had to pay for more of the external costs of their lifestyles, they would change. Since an actual carbon tax with teeth is never going to happen in the US, we're just...fucked, I guess.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17582
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1877 on: October 13, 2022, 04:07:24 PM »
Biden asked Saudi Arabia to delay their planned oil production cuts until after the U.S. mid-term elections.  If voters are going to experience pain, he doesn't want them voting on it?
Seems like a typical political strategy. One could also argue that even a short postponement of planned cuts could help reduce inflation and weaken Russia’s war machine heading into the winter.  In the long term cheap oil is bad for our planet.

Russia is selling oil for far below market price so lower prices don't matter when you can literally pump money out of the ground. 



You are suggesting Russia would not benefit from selling the same oil at higher prices?  How does that work?

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2846
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1878 on: October 14, 2022, 07:04:16 AM »
Biden asked Saudi Arabia to delay their planned oil production cuts until after the U.S. mid-term elections.  If voters are going to experience pain, he doesn't want them voting on it?
Seems like a typical political strategy. One could also argue that even a short postponement of planned cuts could help reduce inflation and weaken Russia’s war machine heading into the winter.  In the long term cheap oil is bad for our planet.

Russia is selling oil for far below market price so lower prices don't matter when you can literally pump money out of the ground. 



You are suggesting Russia would not benefit from selling the same oil at higher prices?  How does that work?

Of course they would, but that's not the point!  The poster basically said that reduced oil prices would wweaken Russia's war machine and I countered that is not true as their price is already far lower.   Higher prices would give them more dollars but wouldn't change anything as there are only so many places for them to sell to. 

Not to mention their manufacturing isn't capable of keeping up with their needed military equipment and thus have to buy from other sanctioned nations.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1879 on: October 16, 2022, 06:56:19 PM »
Two years ago, candidate Joe Biden loudly denounced President Donald Trump for immigration policies that inflicted “cruelty and exclusion at every turn,” including toward those fleeing the “brutal” government of socialist Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.
...
Biden last week invoked a Trump-era rule known as Title 42 -- which Biden’s own Justice Department is fighting in court — to deny Venezuelans fleeing their crisis-torn country the chance to request asylum at the border.
- AP: Biden turning to Trump-era rule to expel Venezuelan migrants

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1880 on: October 18, 2022, 06:58:51 PM »
Economist: The Biden administration is quietly completing bits of Donald Trump’s wall that he promised not to because he's a liar and can not be trusted.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2022, 07:44:44 PM by PDXTabs »

talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1881 on: October 18, 2022, 07:41:48 PM »
Alright, it's time to propose a grand Bargain:

  • Biden commits not to seek re-election in 2024, pardons Trump
  • Trump also commits same; since Trump is not part of government, this would have to take the form of Limiting candidates to appearing on a general election ballot two times
  • They pass the immigration Bill that failed in 2007.
  • Increase border patrol budget by same amount as IRS budget was increased in Inflation reduction Act

How would this group react to that?

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1882 on: October 18, 2022, 07:49:48 PM »
Alright, it's time to propose a grand Bargain:

  • Biden commits not to seek re-election in 2024, pardons Trump
  • Trump also commits same; since Trump is not part of government, this would have to take the form of Limiting candidates to appearing on a general election ballot two times
  • They pass the immigration Bill that failed in 2007.
  • Increase border patrol budget by same amount as IRS budget was increased in Inflation reduction Act

How would this group react to that?

I propose that the left purposefully runs Biden again knowing that Trump will get elected and ensuring the eventual collapse of the Union. At which point we can rebuild with a parliamentary system and no Senate.

chemistk

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1743
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1883 on: October 19, 2022, 06:02:26 AM »
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-highlight-choice-facing-voters-abortion-midterms-near-2022-10-18/

Quote
4 minute readOctober 18, 20227:03 PM EDTLast Updated 10 hours ago
Biden pledges law on abortion rights if Democrats keep Congress
By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden, under pressure over high inflation, sought to mobilize his left-leaning base on Tuesday by promising to sign a law to codify abortion rights in January if Democrats control the legislature next year.

Biden's Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate too, in the November elections. The president is trying to rally the party and its supporters around abortion rights, which were sharply curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision nearly four months ago to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
If Democrats elect more senators and keep control of the House, Biden said he would sign a law in January to ensure women's right to abortion across the country.

"Here is the promise I make to you and the American people: the first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to codify Roe v Wade," Biden said during remarks at the historic Howard Theatre in Washington.

Look, I'm all for codifying abortion into law, but holy shit this seems like it could backfire so very very bad.

It's one of those things that I think needed to remain unspoken - the cat's out of the bag now and this all but guarantees that when Republicans have control of both houses of Congress again, they will absolutely work to ensure that abortion is banned at the federal level.


chemistk

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1743
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1884 on: October 19, 2022, 06:09:08 AM »
Alright, it's time to propose a grand Bargain:

  • Biden commits not to seek re-election in 2024, pardons Trump
  • Trump also commits same; since Trump is not part of government, this would have to take the form of Limiting candidates to appearing on a general election ballot two times
  • They pass the immigration Bill that failed in 2007.
  • Increase border patrol budget by same amount as IRS budget was increased in Inflation reduction Act

How would this group react to that?

I don't like it. We then get fuckface Ronnie (this is how I refer to him and I do not intend to stop) and...Newsom? I don't want Biden to run just as much as I don't want Trump to run.

There's no guarantee that Trump doesn't pull some other bullshit and renege the second Biden's out of the way either.

The 2007 bill also kind of sucks as well - a path for citizenship in exchange for a huge increase in government surveillance and more reasons to keep refugees and asylum seekers out. We need to be overhauling our border patrol system not dumping tons of money into it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1885 on: October 19, 2022, 07:17:04 AM »
I don't like it. We then get fuckface Ronnie (this is how I refer to him and I do not intend to stop)

I've come to the conclusion that there's need for insults.  'fuckface Ronnie' isn't any more insulting than using the name 'Donald Trump'.  Since the second has become a pejorative because of the actions of the name holder using it doesn't reflect as poorly on you personally as other name calling.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1886 on: October 19, 2022, 10:01:31 AM »
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-highlight-choice-facing-voters-abortion-midterms-near-2022-10-18/

Quote
4 minute readOctober 18, 20227:03 PM EDTLast Updated 10 hours ago
Biden pledges law on abortion rights if Democrats keep Congress
By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden, under pressure over high inflation, sought to mobilize his left-leaning base on Tuesday by promising to sign a law to codify abortion rights in January if Democrats control the legislature next year.

Biden's Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate too, in the November elections. The president is trying to rally the party and its supporters around abortion rights, which were sharply curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision nearly four months ago to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
If Democrats elect more senators and keep control of the House, Biden said he would sign a law in January to ensure women's right to abortion across the country.

"Here is the promise I make to you and the American people: the first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to codify Roe v Wade," Biden said during remarks at the historic Howard Theatre in Washington.

Look, I'm all for codifying abortion into law, but holy shit this seems like it could backfire so very very bad.

It's one of those things that I think needed to remain unspoken - the cat's out of the bag now and this all but guarantees that when Republicans have control of both houses of Congress again, they will absolutely work to ensure that abortion is banned at the federal level.

I actually see it the opposite. Now the Democrats have figured out how to protect abortion with legislation? After 50 years of not doing it? Fuck you. I should refuse to vote for you out of pure spite.

Phenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1887 on: October 19, 2022, 10:36:30 AM »
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-highlight-choice-facing-voters-abortion-midterms-near-2022-10-18/

Quote
4 minute readOctober 18, 20227:03 PM EDTLast Updated 10 hours ago
Biden pledges law on abortion rights if Democrats keep Congress
By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden, under pressure over high inflation, sought to mobilize his left-leaning base on Tuesday by promising to sign a law to codify abortion rights in January if Democrats control the legislature next year.

Biden's Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate too, in the November elections. The president is trying to rally the party and its supporters around abortion rights, which were sharply curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision nearly four months ago to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
If Democrats elect more senators and keep control of the House, Biden said he would sign a law in January to ensure women's right to abortion across the country.

"Here is the promise I make to you and the American people: the first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to codify Roe v Wade," Biden said during remarks at the historic Howard Theatre in Washington.

Look, I'm all for codifying abortion into law, but holy shit this seems like it could backfire so very very bad.

It's one of those things that I think needed to remain unspoken - the cat's out of the bag now and this all but guarantees that when Republicans have control of both houses of Congress again, they will absolutely work to ensure that abortion is banned at the federal level.

I actually see it the opposite. Now the Democrats have figured out how to protect abortion with legislation? After 50 years of not doing it? Fuck you. I should refuse to vote for you out of pure spite.

^This
The Republicans have not made it a secret that they want to end abortion and instead of doing something about it while they had a chance, Democrats rolled the dice and have no chance of getting something on the books. Won't the conservative supreme court just rule any federal legislation as unconstitutional since the current precedent is that it's up to each state?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17582
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1888 on: October 19, 2022, 10:54:59 AM »
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-highlight-choice-facing-voters-abortion-midterms-near-2022-10-18/

Quote
4 minute readOctober 18, 20227:03 PM EDTLast Updated 10 hours ago
Biden pledges law on abortion rights if Democrats keep Congress
By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden, under pressure over high inflation, sought to mobilize his left-leaning base on Tuesday by promising to sign a law to codify abortion rights in January if Democrats control the legislature next year.

Biden's Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate too, in the November elections. The president is trying to rally the party and its supporters around abortion rights, which were sharply curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision nearly four months ago to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
If Democrats elect more senators and keep control of the House, Biden said he would sign a law in January to ensure women's right to abortion across the country.

"Here is the promise I make to you and the American people: the first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to codify Roe v Wade," Biden said during remarks at the historic Howard Theatre in Washington.

Look, I'm all for codifying abortion into law, but holy shit this seems like it could backfire so very very bad.

It's one of those things that I think needed to remain unspoken - the cat's out of the bag now and this all but guarantees that when Republicans have control of both houses of Congress again, they will absolutely work to ensure that abortion is banned at the federal level.

I actually see it the opposite. Now the Democrats have figured out how to protect abortion with legislation? After 50 years of not doing it? Fuck you. I should refuse to vote for you out of pure spite.

Seems odd to place your anger there
For half a century it’s been the GOP who have steadfastly maintained that Roe v Wade was “settled law” and that Dems were trying to use it as a wedge issue. Over and over we were told that abortion up to viability was the law of the land so measures to legislate that were unnecessary. All of this was done while the GOP systematically worked to dismantle.

ATtiny85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1889 on: October 19, 2022, 11:51:33 AM »

Seems odd to place your anger there
For half a century it’s been the GOP who have steadfastly maintained that Roe v Wade was “settled law” and that Dems were trying to use it as a wedge issue. Over and over we were told that abortion up to viability was the law of the land so measures to legislate that were unnecessary. All of this was done while the GOP systematically worked to dismantle.

It was beautifully executed long game unfortunately. If anyone believed the GOP wasn’t going to seize the opportunity when it presented itself, well, that was dumb.

If your enemy seems to agree with you, time to watch out.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1890 on: October 19, 2022, 01:37:14 PM »
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-highlight-choice-facing-voters-abortion-midterms-near-2022-10-18/

Quote
4 minute readOctober 18, 20227:03 PM EDTLast Updated 10 hours ago
Biden pledges law on abortion rights if Democrats keep Congress
By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden, under pressure over high inflation, sought to mobilize his left-leaning base on Tuesday by promising to sign a law to codify abortion rights in January if Democrats control the legislature next year.

Biden's Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate too, in the November elections. The president is trying to rally the party and its supporters around abortion rights, which were sharply curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision nearly four months ago to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
If Democrats elect more senators and keep control of the House, Biden said he would sign a law in January to ensure women's right to abortion across the country.

"Here is the promise I make to you and the American people: the first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to codify Roe v Wade," Biden said during remarks at the historic Howard Theatre in Washington.

Look, I'm all for codifying abortion into law, but holy shit this seems like it could backfire so very very bad.

It's one of those things that I think needed to remain unspoken - the cat's out of the bag now and this all but guarantees that when Republicans have control of both houses of Congress again, they will absolutely work to ensure that abortion is banned at the federal level.

I actually see it the opposite. Now the Democrats have figured out how to protect abortion with legislation? After 50 years of not doing it? Fuck you. I should refuse to vote for you out of pure spite.

^This
The Republicans have not made it a secret that they want to end abortion and instead of doing something about it while they had a chance, Democrats rolled the dice and have no chance of getting something on the books. Won't the conservative supreme court just rule any federal legislation as unconstitutional since the current precedent is that it's up to each state?

If there's one thing that this Supreme Court has demonstrated, it's that precedent is a thing of the past.  All decisions made are now made from a hard politically right viewpoint without even lip service payed to stare decisis.

ATtiny85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1891 on: October 19, 2022, 02:22:53 PM »

If there's one thing that this Supreme Court has demonstrated, it's that precedent is a thing of the past.  All decisions made are now made from a hard politically right viewpoint without even lip service payed to stare decisis.

Oddly, that is a bit parallel to some things I observe in society. Clearly the SC is not mimicking society, and society is not mimicking the SC. But yet similar “forget how we got here, go that way” desires/actions.

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2658
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1892 on: October 19, 2022, 04:24:17 PM »
Seems odd to place your anger there
For half a century it’s been the GOP who have steadfastly maintained that Roe v Wade was “settled law” and that Dems were trying to use it as a wedge issue. Over and over we were told that abortion up to viability was the law of the land so measures to legislate that were unnecessary. All of this was done while the GOP systematically worked to dismantle.

What is your evidence here?

For half a century the GOP has been trying to overturn Roe v Wade because it was bad jurisprudence - essentially creating a new right out of whole cloth. The hundreds of laws passed at the state level ever since then to restrict/eliminate abortion have been a steady attempt to chip away at it. I don't think anyone on the pro-life side considered it "settled law".

Both sides were happy to use it as a wedge issue - and will continue to do so because it raises money, and it gets votes. That's all most politicians care about (well ultimately power - votes and money are just the means of achieving that power).




Please note, we don't need to argue the entire abortion debate here. I'm only addressing your claim that Republicans considered it settled law for decades which I disagree with. I am pro-life, I recognize I am in the minority on this forum. Nobody is changing their opinions on the matter. Just addressing this specific post.

LaineyAZ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1893 on: October 19, 2022, 04:32:27 PM »
See:  Congressional hearings for the most recent Supreme Court nominees.  All were asked about abortion, all said it was settled law.

And then - surprise! - it wasn't. 

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17582
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1894 on: October 19, 2022, 05:15:02 PM »


Please note, we don't need to argue the entire abortion debate here. I'm only addressing your claim that Republicans considered it settled law for decades which I disagree with. I am pro-life, I recognize I am in the minority on this forum. Nobody is changing their opinions on the matter. Just addressing this specific post.

Perhaps it’s how you reading my statement. High ranking Republicans frequently referred to Roe as “settled law” or deferred to ‘legal precident’ - almost certainly to blunt opposition - even while working to restrict and undo it.

See:  Congressional hearings for the most recent Supreme Court nominees.  All were asked about abortion, all said it was settled law.

And then - surprise! - it wasn't.

Pretty much this.

Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh all referred to Roe v Wade as “settled law” during their confirmation hearings. Go back just a tad further and you see Roberts said the same thing (Justice Alito called it “an important precedent” that had been on the books “for a long time”.  Justice Thomas claimed he “hadn’t given it much thought” - which is about as plausible as Aaron Judge saying he hadn’t given much thought to home run records).  See also the public comments made in debates by everyone from George W Bush to Romney to McCain about Roe being settled law, and while they personally disagreed they definitely weren’t there to change it. 

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4931
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1895 on: October 19, 2022, 09:44:46 PM »
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-highlight-choice-facing-voters-abortion-midterms-near-2022-10-18/

Quote
4 minute readOctober 18, 20227:03 PM EDTLast Updated 10 hours ago
Biden pledges law on abortion rights if Democrats keep Congress
By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden, under pressure over high inflation, sought to mobilize his left-leaning base on Tuesday by promising to sign a law to codify abortion rights in January if Democrats control the legislature next year.

Biden's Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate too, in the November elections. The president is trying to rally the party and its supporters around abortion rights, which were sharply curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision nearly four months ago to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
If Democrats elect more senators and keep control of the House, Biden said he would sign a law in January to ensure women's right to abortion across the country.

"Here is the promise I make to you and the American people: the first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to codify Roe v Wade," Biden said during remarks at the historic Howard Theatre in Washington.

Look, I'm all for codifying abortion into law, but holy shit this seems like it could backfire so very very bad.

It's one of those things that I think needed to remain unspoken - the cat's out of the bag now and this all but guarantees that when Republicans have control of both houses of Congress again, they will absolutely work to ensure that abortion is banned at the federal level.
The GOP already plan to do so, how would this cause it to be any different?

chemistk

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1743
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1896 on: October 20, 2022, 05:48:01 AM »
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-highlight-choice-facing-voters-abortion-midterms-near-2022-10-18/

Quote
4 minute readOctober 18, 20227:03 PM EDTLast Updated 10 hours ago
Biden pledges law on abortion rights if Democrats keep Congress
By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden, under pressure over high inflation, sought to mobilize his left-leaning base on Tuesday by promising to sign a law to codify abortion rights in January if Democrats control the legislature next year.

Biden's Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate too, in the November elections. The president is trying to rally the party and its supporters around abortion rights, which were sharply curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision nearly four months ago to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
If Democrats elect more senators and keep control of the House, Biden said he would sign a law in January to ensure women's right to abortion across the country.

"Here is the promise I make to you and the American people: the first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to codify Roe v Wade," Biden said during remarks at the historic Howard Theatre in Washington.

Look, I'm all for codifying abortion into law, but holy shit this seems like it could backfire so very very bad.

It's one of those things that I think needed to remain unspoken - the cat's out of the bag now and this all but guarantees that when Republicans have control of both houses of Congress again, they will absolutely work to ensure that abortion is banned at the federal level.
The GOP already plan to do so, how would this cause it to be any different?

I could be wrong in the sense that another very high-level federal politician has said so much in the past but I view Biden's statement as a sort of "He said the thing that they never said before".

By remaining unspoken yet assumed, Biden and past presidents have had the theater of denial to perform on. Some people are so easily swayed.

But by saying it out loud, it's as if it's been manifested into existence. No longer do conservatives have a "you'll see, they'll do it if we don't stop 'em"* platform they have to stand on. They can point to this one specific quote and finally say "see, we told you, now go out and vote for us".

I'm all for it finally being said at face value, as I would be for so many other views and intentions, but there's no way this doesn't smell of desperation and at least from my view, there's no way that it actually gets accomplished in the next two years.

As Michael in ABQ points out, it is absolutely a wedge issue and instead of the overturning of Roe being the last word, the debate has escalated by an order of magnitude. The worst part is that candidates from both parties have to make it into a reductionist argument, much more so than in the past. As a voter, you're being forced into caring about the issue even if it's not top of mind. In that regard I absolutely believe that Biden's comments are ultimately more detrimental then beneficial because it's not like the grand majority of the voting public isn't already acutely aware of the issue.

*unironically, the same argument is obviously used by all sides.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1897 on: October 24, 2022, 09:51:31 PM »
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-highlight-choice-facing-voters-abortion-midterms-near-2022-10-18/

Quote
4 minute readOctober 18, 20227:03 PM EDTLast Updated 10 hours ago
Biden pledges law on abortion rights if Democrats keep Congress
By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden, under pressure over high inflation, sought to mobilize his left-leaning base on Tuesday by promising to sign a law to codify abortion rights in January if Democrats control the legislature next year.

Biden's Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate too, in the November elections. The president is trying to rally the party and its supporters around abortion rights, which were sharply curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision nearly four months ago to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
If Democrats elect more senators and keep control of the House, Biden said he would sign a law in January to ensure women's right to abortion across the country.

"Here is the promise I make to you and the American people: the first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to codify Roe v Wade," Biden said during remarks at the historic Howard Theatre in Washington.

Look, I'm all for codifying abortion into law, but holy shit this seems like it could backfire so very very bad.

It's one of those things that I think needed to remain unspoken - the cat's out of the bag now and this all but guarantees that when Republicans have control of both houses of Congress again, they will absolutely work to ensure that abortion is banned at the federal level.

I actually see it the opposite. Now the Democrats have figured out how to protect abortion with legislation? After 50 years of not doing it? Fuck you. I should refuse to vote for you out of pure spite.

Seems odd to place your anger there
For half a century it’s been the GOP who have steadfastly maintained that Roe v Wade was “settled law” and that Dems were trying to use it as a wedge issue. Over and over we were told that abortion up to viability was the law of the land so measures to legislate that were unnecessary. All of this was done while the GOP systematically worked to dismantle.

I disagree with your reading of history. Here is how I see it but you are welcome to correct any facts that I have wrong.

Pre-1973: The GOP appoints Harry Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, William J. Brennan Jr, Potter Stewart, and Lewis F. Powell Jr to the supreme court. Abortion is not an important issue in the GOP at the time.

1973: The five aforementioned GOP appointed justices had enough votes to push Roe v Wade through without the two Democratic appointees that joined them. Of note: one Democratic appointee and one GOP appointee dissented. Remember, this was a different GOP that cared about keeping the government out of your affairs which is why the decision was based on a right to privacy. Side note: both Nixon and Ford supported the Equal Rights Amendment.

1976: a small but very vocal minority of the GOP go ape-shit at the 1976 RNC, but they don't win. Here is a snippet from the 1976 platform:
In our 1972 Platform, the Republican Party recognized the great contributions women have made to society as homemakers and mothers, as contributors to the community through volunteer work, and as members of the labor force in careers. The Platform stated then, and repeats now, that the Republican Party "fully endorses the principle of equal rights, equal opportunities and equal responsibilities for women." The Equal Rights Amendment is the embodiment of this principle and therefore we support its swift ratification.

The question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time. It is undoubtedly a moral and personal issue but it also involves complex questions relating to medical science and criminal justice. There are those in our Party who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision which permits abortion on demand. There are others who share sincere convictions that the Supreme Court's decision must be changed by a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions. Others have yet to take a position, or they have assumed a stance somewhere in between polar positions.

Further reading: NYT: Republican Feminists Prepare to Fight for Convention Delegates, Rights Amendment and Abortion

1977: The Democrats have the trifecta and a filibuster proof majority and a GOP that isn't yet rabidly anit-abortion. They do nothing.

1980: The evangelical wing succeeds in changing the GOP party platform:
There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general—and in our own Party—we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers' dollars for abortion.

1981-2008: Do the Democrats do anything at the national level to protect abortion through legislation?

2009: At various times in 2009 the Democrats again have the trifecta and 60 votes in the Senate (if you count the two independents). Again, they do nothing.

2010-2019: Do the Democrats do anything at the national level to protect abortion through legislation?

2020-21: We have a global pandemic and a whole thing where suddenly the right cares about bodily autonomy and medical privacy. No one in the Democratic party puts forward a bodily autonomy amendment to the constitution.

2022: Roe v Wade overturned with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

As to why the Democrats never did anything, I have a theory. Abortion was worth a lot of political dollars to both sides. Both sides got to rile up their base for donor money to fuel the huge armies of election campaigners. Like the condottieri armies in ancient Italy the point wasn't to win, the point was to get paid. Actually winning the abortion fight would have meant one less thing to rile up your base with. For decades this worked great, until it didn't. Thanks Carter! Note: I don't think that the GOP as a whole actually wanted to win either, but eventually they accidentally did.

Also, women in Canada, Ireland, and the UK have free government abortions. But they don't have a constitutional right to an abortion, it's just normal statutory law. This thing where the Democrats wanted the supreme court to do their jobs for them looks very odd to many outsiders. Furthermore, women in the USA never had a right to an abortion, doctors had a right to sell them an abortion.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2022, 10:00:34 PM by PDXTabs »

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1898 on: October 24, 2022, 10:35:56 PM »
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-highlight-choice-facing-voters-abortion-midterms-near-2022-10-18/

Quote
4 minute readOctober 18, 20227:03 PM EDTLast Updated 10 hours ago
Biden pledges law on abortion rights if Democrats keep Congress
By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden, under pressure over high inflation, sought to mobilize his left-leaning base on Tuesday by promising to sign a law to codify abortion rights in January if Democrats control the legislature next year.

Biden's Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate too, in the November elections. The president is trying to rally the party and its supporters around abortion rights, which were sharply curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision nearly four months ago to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
If Democrats elect more senators and keep control of the House, Biden said he would sign a law in January to ensure women's right to abortion across the country.

"Here is the promise I make to you and the American people: the first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to codify Roe v Wade," Biden said during remarks at the historic Howard Theatre in Washington.

Look, I'm all for codifying abortion into law, but holy shit this seems like it could backfire so very very bad.

It's one of those things that I think needed to remain unspoken - the cat's out of the bag now and this all but guarantees that when Republicans have control of both houses of Congress again, they will absolutely work to ensure that abortion is banned at the federal level.

I actually see it the opposite. Now the Democrats have figured out how to protect abortion with legislation? After 50 years of not doing it? Fuck you. I should refuse to vote for you out of pure spite.

^This
The Republicans have not made it a secret that they want to end abortion and instead of doing something about it while they had a chance, Democrats rolled the dice and have no chance of getting something on the books. Won't the conservative supreme court just rule any federal legislation as unconstitutional since the current precedent is that it's up to each state?

If there's one thing that this Supreme Court has demonstrated, it's that precedent is a thing of the past.  All decisions made are now made from a hard politically right viewpoint without even lip service payed to stare decisis.

Come on, Gideon v. Wainwright overturned Betts v. Brady thereby giving indigent defendants the right to counsel. Precedent is precedent until it isn't. It has always been that way.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2022, 10:39:39 PM by PDXTabs »

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3104
  • she/her
Re: Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )
« Reply #1899 on: October 25, 2022, 05:25:11 PM »
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-highlight-choice-facing-voters-abortion-midterms-near-2022-10-18/

Quote
4 minute readOctober 18, 20227:03 PM EDTLast Updated 10 hours ago
Biden pledges law on abortion rights if Democrats keep Congress
By Jeff Mason and Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden, under pressure over high inflation, sought to mobilize his left-leaning base on Tuesday by promising to sign a law to codify abortion rights in January if Democrats control the legislature next year.

Biden's Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate too, in the November elections. The president is trying to rally the party and its supporters around abortion rights, which were sharply curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision nearly four months ago to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
If Democrats elect more senators and keep control of the House, Biden said he would sign a law in January to ensure women's right to abortion across the country.

"Here is the promise I make to you and the American people: the first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to codify Roe v Wade," Biden said during remarks at the historic Howard Theatre in Washington.

Look, I'm all for codifying abortion into law, but holy shit this seems like it could backfire so very very bad.

It's one of those things that I think needed to remain unspoken - the cat's out of the bag now and this all but guarantees that when Republicans have control of both houses of Congress again, they will absolutely work to ensure that abortion is banned at the federal level.

I actually see it the opposite. Now the Democrats have figured out how to protect abortion with legislation? After 50 years of not doing it? Fuck you. I should refuse to vote for you out of pure spite.

^This
The Republicans have not made it a secret that they want to end abortion and instead of doing something about it while they had a chance, Democrats rolled the dice and have no chance of getting something on the books. Won't the conservative supreme court just rule any federal legislation as unconstitutional since the current precedent is that it's up to each state?

If there's one thing that this Supreme Court has demonstrated, it's that precedent is a thing of the past.  All decisions made are now made from a hard politically right viewpoint without even lip service payed to stare decisis.

Come on, Gideon v. Wainwright overturned Betts v. Brady thereby giving indigent defendants the right to counsel. Precedent is precedent until it isn't. It has always been that way.

That's at a pretty superficial point of view though.  I don't have my notes from reading Gideon in law school in front of me, but what I remember from law school is that the rare cases that overturned precedent struggled with it and dissected it and wrung all the reasoning out of the issue.  It *engaged*.  This Supreme Court, particularly if you look at the brand new Shadow Docket that may not overturn precendent per se (given a lack of decision text at all) but bizarrely ignores it leaves the average bystander mystified as to why the hell a precendent is being ignored or overturned.  It's the arrogance of this court knowing they don't have to and you can't make them.  Because the court used to believe stare decisis was paramount and it owed the American people a damn good explanation if it was going to break with it, they actually did us the favor of making their case to us, like the petitioners had to do to them.  They are showing pretty strong signs that they don't feel like they owe us anything anymore and we just better feel lucky if we even get the text of any decision, what with the booming Shadow Docket.

They are out of control and there's just no comparison with the earlier courts in that way.