Well done GOP
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
Shiftless2
Well-known member
And it's unethical and immoral. Exactly like anyone who supports it.
And it's unethical and immoral and legal, sort of.
I gather the reversal of Roe was 5:4.
a) Wouldn't the balance on the court be 5:4 w/ majority Democrats? Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) refused to give Merrick Garland a nomination hearing. "Advise and consent" is the Constitutional wording. Obviously not holding any hearing cannot be either. Why has the DOJ not grabbed that one and ironed it?
b) How many of those currently on SCOTUS swore under oath that Roe was settled law, and that they wouldn't overturn it? Doesn't their SCOTUS vote to overturn Roe constitute perjury? And if they're guilty of perjury, how can they retain their office in the highest court in the land? And if such perjury disqualifies them from the office, must it not also disqualify that ruling?
I genuinely don't understand it. These criminals have already made a mockery of law and governance, and now they're attempting to enshrine their "improvements" for perpetuity. U.S. patriots have more to fear from Republicans than they (we) do from al Qaida, ISIL, and Russia combined.
Seriously
I'm too literal minded. I'd forgotten the ancient Latin legal maxim: qui tacet, consentire videtur:
He who is silent is supposed to consent. The silence of a party implies his consent.
Perhaps Obama was too conservative to act on that. I wonder if Bill Clinton might have used a senate majority leader's refusal to hold a nomination hearing as acceptance, and simply seated his nominee without any formal senate grounds to do otherwise. The vacancy was there, & needed to be filled. "Politics ain't beanbag." And with the Democrats standing there, silent witness to the nation being ransacked before their eyes, they need an idea.
The Republican failures at selecting a house speaker to replace Pelosi make them look incompetent. Ironically, the ideological radicalization motivating it may work to Democrat advantage. When the Republican house speaker is a few votes short, and he can't get the votes he needs from his own party's caucus, the motivation will be to obtain the needed votes from among Democrats. This in turn empowers Democrats to obtain changes to the legislation they want, and would not otherwise get.
It's your point t #6,
mind if I help sharpen it?
One of the terms Speaker McCarthy (R) was forced to accept is that a single house member can challenge his tenure. That imposes devastating weakness on the GOP in the house, and beyond. They need a leader with an agenda that extends beyond his own personal ambition. That means, replace Trump. Seems like the GOP isn't ready for that yet.
mind if I help sharpen it?
One of the terms Speaker McCarthy (R) was forced to accept is that a single house member can challenge his tenure. That imposes devastating weakness on the GOP in the house, and beyond. They need a leader with an agenda that extends beyond his own personal ambition. That means, replace Trump. Seems like the GOP isn't ready for that yet.
Borg Refinery
Active member
Don't they have to go through a process of impeachment to be removed? Do they not possess judicial immunity otherwise?
They aren't committing genocide and recruiting criminals to kill civilians in a country they are occupying, so I can't really agree, but they are nonetheless really, really bad - and many of them are making excuses for Putin.
I read that Trump or DeSantis's plan upon gaining power is to simply ignore SCOTUS rulings they don't like at all - no matter how many times they are compelled to act - they intend to simply ignore rulings that don't comport with their ideology. It seems feasible, it's part of Bannon's new strategy along with taking over the civil service starting on day 1.
Borg Refinery
Active member
They have been disappointing on some fronts, but then they have been held back by A) the prospect of a civil war if they go too far with the SCOTUS B) they've been held back by the now-defected Kyrsten Sinema and of course Joe Manchin in the Senate wrt most items on their agenda - and they have of course been hamstrung by some Democrat infighting with the proggies as well, so they have had a lot to contend with and I guess, with that in mind, have done relatively well to achieve some of their goals. They put up quite a good fight too with Hakeem Jeffries coming in first against McCarthy - yes a symbolic victory but still, quite the symbolic victory. It's good to ritually humiliate men like McCarthy.
It's also true (if you peruse the NPR link) that in 1992 Biden and the Dems did a similar thing as the Rs did to Garland re confirmation to SCOTUS, but yes they do need to come up with a few more trump cards, that said, slow and steady appears to be paying off as Trump Org may be close to being shut down now - and they may be torpedoing GOP prospects for 2024 if the midterms are an early indicator.
I have yet to check the polling for Trump Sr v Biden but I'm betting it's not great right now (I'm betting DeSantis is better in terms of polling v Biden - but he and Trump have to fight it out first in a future primary). With the current amount of infighting in the GOP (Boebert V Marjorie Taylor Greene etc) they may just destroy themselves and implode so no one else need do much.
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." Sun Tzu
Greetings BF, & happy 2023.
My layman's (meaning "ignorant") guess is, in most cases they can rule either way, yes or no, without consequence beyond the stare decisis implications of their ruling / precedent.
Whether there's an exception (the essence of your question perhaps) if they vote against the Constitution directly. I don't know. I'm trying to read the tea leaves here. Some pro-Trump sympathies, and perhaps pro-insurrection sympathies were traced to Ginny Thomas, the justice's wife. On that basis some thought Thomas should recuse himself.
Reportedly he did not.
A n'er-do-well like UBL was able to topple two of our towers, bash a hole in the Pentagon, and mar the finish on four of our airliners on 09/11/01. THOUSANDS of innocents died.
All that resulted in an adjustment to the president's schedule.
BUT !!
It did NOT fundamentally threaten the Constitution.
It's obviously a different type of threat. The Trump insurrection (reportedly the most extensive FBI investigation in US history) if successful might have altered the U.S. and its Constitution, or ended it / them entirely.
I'm not a huge fan of metaphor BR, but for all its faults, it's often laconic. We dodged a bullet on insurrection day 2 years ago. And though the formal process which has resulted has been plodding, it does at least seem the federal authorities are aware of the problem. Why Trump is still stumbling around loose I can't guess.
Unless they resign or die, I believe so.
Another interesting question BR #8.
My layman's (meaning "ignorant") guess is, in most cases they can rule either way, yes or no, without consequence beyond the stare decisis implications of their ruling / precedent.
Whether there's an exception (the essence of your question perhaps) if they vote against the Constitution directly. I don't know. I'm trying to read the tea leaves here. Some pro-Trump sympathies, and perhaps pro-insurrection sympathies were traced to Ginny Thomas, the justice's wife. On that basis some thought Thomas should recuse himself.
Reportedly he did not.
Another excellent point.
A n'er-do-well like UBL was able to topple two of our towers, bash a hole in the Pentagon, and mar the finish on four of our airliners on 09/11/01. THOUSANDS of innocents died.
All that resulted in an adjustment to the president's schedule.
BUT !!
It did NOT fundamentally threaten the Constitution.
It's obviously a different type of threat. The Trump insurrection (reportedly the most extensive FBI investigation in US history) if successful might have altered the U.S. and its Constitution, or ended it / them entirely.
I'm not a huge fan of metaphor BR, but for all its faults, it's often laconic. We dodged a bullet on insurrection day 2 years ago. And though the formal process which has resulted has been plodding, it does at least seem the federal authorities are aware of the problem. Why Trump is still stumbling around loose I can't guess.
I deduce you know more about the Speaker than I do.
Problem is though I'm not resolutely of this opinion I gather McCarthy demonstrated his lack of political skill in surrendering many traditional powers of his office, before he assumed the mantle.
In this matter I have some sympathies with the Democrats. But I think McCarthy might have served both his party and his nation more constructively if he'd showed some spine, and let his political adversaries come to him, rather than the other way around.
As I understand the condition of Speaker McCarthy's tenure, ANY member of the house can initiate McCarthy from the speakership. That seems to me to be an insurmountable weakness.
PS
I'm wondering whether after the debt ceiling is raised, McCarthy may have his Speaker tenure challenged.
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu, published author don't you know ...
Borg Refinery
Active member
The funny thing is, Matt Gaetz AKA Butthead and Boebert actually raised some half-almost-interesting points about McCarthy - it's funny how the Trumpists think men like Lindsay Graham and McCarthy are spineless (which they absolutely are ) but for 180 degrees the exact opposite reasons to us [as in non-Trumpists]? But their final conclusion is still sound. I noticed Paul Gosar and Gaetz tried to sweet talk Ocasio-Cortez as well, hmm, that didn't work out either. She has more principle than Gosar, Gaetz and Boebert combined.
Boebert & Butthead has a great ring to it doesn't it?
Boebert & Butthead has a great ring to it doesn't it?
Last edited:
BR #12
Not easy for me to differentiate BR #12.
In my younger (more naïve?) years I knew there was political rivalry, partisanship. BUT !! I had the impression partisanship seldom if ever surpassed citizenship. We were U.S. citizens first, and partisans second.
Fiction author Tom Clancey said one of the differences between reality and fiction is, fiction has to make sense.
Not easy for me to differentiate BR #12.
In my younger (more naïve?) years I knew there was political rivalry, partisanship. BUT !! I had the impression partisanship seldom if ever surpassed citizenship. We were U.S. citizens first, and partisans second.
Fiction author Tom Clancey said one of the differences between reality and fiction is, fiction has to make sense.
Borg Refinery
Active member
I tend to think it's not about citizenship of anywhere but commonly shared values that transcend borders anywhere in the world, or almost anything else for that matter - when people pride themselves too much on their identity theycan start to develop a kind of collective narcissism.
That is by no means an attempt at yank bashing - we very much suffer from that in the UK too, just look at Brexit and our chest puffing and embarrassing superior attitude towards our European neighbours. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be glad of your country and feel kinship with fellow countrymen, it means you should understand that you can have more in common with someone all the way across the world- than you can with your next door neighbour; someone who you could've known for your whole life who you are supposed to have everything in common with (socioeconomic status - knowing them since forever - same race, same gender ETC) - But in reality, you have more in common with someone for which all those charateristics are the opposite. some way across the world.
That is by no means an attempt at yank bashing - we very much suffer from that in the UK too, just look at Brexit and our chest puffing and embarrassing superior attitude towards our European neighbours. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be glad of your country and feel kinship with fellow countrymen, it means you should understand that you can have more in common with someone all the way across the world- than you can with your next door neighbour; someone who you could've known for your whole life who you are supposed to have everything in common with (socioeconomic status - knowing them since forever - same race, same gender ETC) - But in reality, you have more in common with someone for which all those charateristics are the opposite. some way across the world.
Not sure how well my personal outlook meshes w/ your #14 BR, but I'm OK with humanitarianism. That doesn't mean I'm against animals. Instead I suppose it's rather like utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. BUT !!
I prefer to leave Robin Hood to Sherwood Forest.
Part of the distinction here is:
- as a private citizen I can harbor attitudes / delusions as I please. BUT
- our members of congress (MOC) are elected, swear an oath to the Constitution, and are paid in the reported $98th %percentile. That means they're well paid to serve their nation, and their constituencies.
Betraying both under that circumstance seems beyond the pale to me.
Borg Refinery
Active member
Well I don't believe my country is superior to all other countries because I was born into it. If that doesn't make me a patriot hten so be it, but I've never felt superior to any African just by virtue of where I was born. Why would I?
That doesn't mean I don't love England and advocate on its behalf more than for other countries, it just means I recognise that no country is 'the best' just because I might come from it.
I agree that if you represent a country as a poltician you should do your best by your constituents though, but even that's not patriotism per se or even nationalism, itt's more just representing your local constituents whoever they are - in fact if you think about it logically you might need to go AGAINST national interests to represent YOUR constituents.
Furthermore, even the worst congress critters like the Neo-Nazi holocaust denying dentist, Paul Gosar, is just advocating on behalf of his constituents and what they appear to want. Many of them appear to be more extreme than him. I don't know what to say to that or what to think about it either.
Trump's base are actually too extreme for him and are disappointed on his stances on vaccines and such, they think he's a lightweight moderate who didn't get anything done. They're starting to flock to DeSantis who is just plain nasty as well as incompetent - in some forlorn hope he will fulfil their deepest desires and wishes - which are unfulfillable (is that a word?) by any politician because it's not really about politics - it's usually something in them
They want things to get angry and unreasonable about to channel their inner rage in a forlorn hope that that will somehow focus it and make things better
It's sad because that energy could be better spent really making the country great again rather than tearing it to shreds.
That doesn't mean I don't love England and advocate on its behalf more than for other countries, it just means I recognise that no country is 'the best' just because I might come from it.
I agree that if you represent a country as a poltician you should do your best by your constituents though, but even that's not patriotism per se or even nationalism, itt's more just representing your local constituents whoever they are - in fact if you think about it logically you might need to go AGAINST national interests to represent YOUR constituents.
Furthermore, even the worst congress critters like the Neo-Nazi holocaust denying dentist, Paul Gosar, is just advocating on behalf of his constituents and what they appear to want. Many of them appear to be more extreme than him. I don't know what to say to that or what to think about it either.
Trump's base are actually too extreme for him and are disappointed on his stances on vaccines and such, they think he's a lightweight moderate who didn't get anything done. They're starting to flock to DeSantis who is just plain nasty as well as incompetent - in some forlorn hope he will fulfil their deepest desires and wishes - which are unfulfillable (is that a word?) by any politician because it's not really about politics - it's usually something in them
They want things to get angry and unreasonable about to channel their inner rage in a forlorn hope that that will somehow focus it and make things better
It's sad because that energy could be better spent really making the country great again rather than tearing it to shreds.
Shaw was a polemicist. I see both satire and ridicule in the quotation. But GBS is not a synonym for OED.
Reductio ad absurdum:
when wearing the military uniform of one's native nation, looking down the gun-sight at a similar human wearing dissimilar uniform, birth-pride may not be enough to render legitimate participating in their slaughter.
From the Russian perspective: how can Russian troops justify murdering Ukranians?
From Ukraine perspective: is this not about as pure an example of self-defense as history provides?
It's the logical disjuncture we suffer when applying our own logical standards to the illogic we witness proliferating around us.
You're right of course. When included in a 100 member crowd marching to cadence and all the left feet strike the ground in unison, except your! we're inclined to think it is our own left foot that's out of sync.
You've already cited the rare exception. I agree, it seems terribly odd. BUT it is indeed the 99 that are out of step.
I recognize your Trump / MAGA allusion here. I've never thought much of "MAGA", it's a political slogan, hardly a lightning flash of incandescent ideological insight.
Shallow brooks babble loudest.
From the introductory post -
"OBGYNs in Louisiana are refusing to see patients before 12 weeks of pregnancy because miscarriages are very common during that period and doctors afraid of being investigated and prosecuted for abortion if a patient miscarries." introductory graphic
Human pregnancy begins with a single cell, and ends at birth. Pro-lifers seem to object to abortion the closer to birth the gestation has progressed. Doesn't this 12 week delay work directly against this pro-life interest? They're not making it better. They're making it worse.
"They want things to get angry and unreasonable about to channel their inner rage in a forlorn hope that that will somehow focus it and make things better" Borg
Few words, clarifying insight.
"OBGYNs in Louisiana are refusing to see patients before 12 weeks of pregnancy because miscarriages are very common during that period and doctors afraid of being investigated and prosecuted for abortion if a patient miscarries." introductory graphic
Human pregnancy begins with a single cell, and ends at birth. Pro-lifers seem to object to abortion the closer to birth the gestation has progressed. Doesn't this 12 week delay work directly against this pro-life interest? They're not making it better. They're making it worse.
"They want things to get angry and unreasonable about to channel their inner rage in a forlorn hope that that will somehow focus it and make things better" Borg
Few words, clarifying insight.
t #18 !
That looks like a conceptual hatchet in the forehead to the anti-choicers.
If they have a fig leaf, it may be they simply hadn't thought it through, hadn't considered the consequence.
If on that basis the anti-choicers relent enough for OB/GYN patients to have appointments when medically appropriate instead of when politically / legally less risky for the doctor, I'll suspend my criticism of it. Thanks t-meister. Keep that hatchet handy. The GOP is just getting started.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Police are prosecuting abortion seekers using their digital data — and Facebook and Google help them do it
Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert- Police make requests for social-media user data to aid prosecution after a crime has been committed.
- Sometimes, the crime is abortion and social apps are turning over user chat logs and search history.
- One legal expert said platforms may cooperate with police even if they're not legally required to.
Through data collected by online pharmacies, social media posts, and user data requests from law enforcement for message and search logs, cases for prosecution can be built against women for seeking abortion — and it has been happening since before Roe was overturned.
This spring, a woman named Jessica Burgess and her daughter will stand trial in Nebraska after being accused of performing an illegal abortion — with a key piece of evidence provided by Meta, the parent company of Facebook. Prosecutors said Burgess helped her daughter find and take pills that would induce an abortion. The teenage Burgess also faces charges of illegally disposing of the fetal remains.
TechCrunch reported that internal chat logs were provided to law-enforcement officers by ...
Police are prosecuting abortion seekers using their digital data — and Facebook and Google help them do it
Social-media sites are inundated with police requests for user data and may cooperate even if not legally required to, one legal expert told Insider.
www.businessinsider.com
And people thought that women were paranoid because they wouldn't tell their doctor about the date of their last period.