What Happens in the Red States

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | What Happens in the Red States

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #449382
      eridani
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 10,290

      https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/10/10/what-happens-in-the-red-states/

      Covid infections transmitted in pandemicist red states easily and regularly cross into blue states that take public health and science more seriously. (Iowa City’s student parking lots are loaded with Illinois license plates, meaning that thousands of the local university’s students return from their wild west Covid Confederacy [upper Midwestern offshoot] school to the Chicago area, where more responsible rules are set by the smart corporate-Democratic governor J.B. Pritzker.)

      The Texas abortion bill just passed extends civil liability to people in other states and countries, meaning that a New Yorker can be sued for giving money to a group that helped ferry a poor Texas woman to an abortion clinic in Nevada. Its insidious mercenary impact is explicitly nationwide.

      Right-wing Christian fascist advocates of forced motherhood and de facto female slavery have for years been pushing through red state anti-abortion laws with the explicit purpose of forcing a federal high court decision making abortion illegal again on a national level. Mississippi’s horrific 15-week abortion bill is slated to be heard by the right-wing US Supreme Court later this year or early next year. Texas may be the nation-leading “New Gilead” at present, but make no mistake: the plan is to make the whole country a New Gilead and the nation’s absurdly powerful high court is likely on board. As National “Public” Radio explained last spring:

      In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down a six-week ban in North Dakota and a 12-week ban in Arkansas. That same year, the court struck down a Texas law that made it difficult and expensive for clinics that perform abortions to function. But since then, the composition of the court has changed dramatically, with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a major advocate of reproductive rights; the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a centrist conservative who supported abortion rights; and the addition of three Trump appointees to the court. Bottom line: The court now has a 6-3 conservative super majority, with all six having taken positions hostile to abortion rights at one time or another, and the newest justice, Barrett, the most outspoken critic of abortion before joining the high court. The 6-3 majority means that conservatives can lose one of their own on this issue and still prevail. That wasn’t the case as long as Chief Justice John Roberts held the deciding vote. Though he has never been a supporter of abortion rights, his approach has always been to whittle away at Roe, slowly eroding the rights tiny piece by tiny piece. But with Monday’s decision to take on the whole question of pre-viability abortion bans, that approach may now be on the way out, and a more direct approach on the way in — namely overturning Roe.

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

    • #449405
      Earthartist
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,569

      I sometimes thing the Dems have no issue with this. Obama and the dems made no real effort to push through their nomination they just did a lot of hand wringing. The courts are so politicized now they have just become another failure of our so called democracy. there will come a point where the people will say enough!

      Earthartist

      • #449430
        Jim Lane
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 889

        @earthartist

        You write:

        Obama and the dems made no real effort to push through their nomination they just did a lot of hand wringing.

        I read stuff like this over and over on JPR.  It’s a criticism of the Democrats, so on this board it’s widely presumed to be true with no need of supporting evidence. Perhaps my query is therefore futile, but I’d like an explanation.

        It’s February 13, 2016. Antonin Scalia has just died. Later that same day, Mitch McConnell announces that the Senate Republicans won’t even consider any Supreme Court nominee from President Barack Obama. Nevertheless, Obama goes ahead and nominates Merrick Garland.

        The Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee is Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican. The Republicans also hold a majority on the committee. Grassley refuses to so much as schedule a hearing on the Garland nomination.

        The Senate Majority Leader is Mitch McConnell, another Republican. He adheres to his position that, even if the Judiciary Committee were to report out the nomination, it would not be considered. As Majority Leader, he controls what can be brought up for a vote.

        In light of these facts, can you tell me, very specifically, what Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the other Democrats should have done that would not be dismissed as mere “hand wringing”? Should they have jointly authored a stiffly worded denunciation in Counterpunch? Threatened to hold their breaths until they turned blue? Should Obama have ordered the FBI to go and arrest Graham and McConnell on some pretext or other?

        Or, since Jill Stein had so much support on JPR, can you tell me how she would have handled the situation if she had been elected President in 2012?

         

        • #449439
          jbnw
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 5,831

          Personally, I wish Obama had pushed for this – I do not a recall a significant effort with national addresses on what the Constitution says on the Senate requirements, and pressure on the Senators’ states to hold hearings.

          Unfortunately, there was no equivalent Democratic effort at the end of Trump’s Presidency, with a reminder of the precedent the Republicans had set.

          • #449517
            Earthartist
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 1,569

            Hey Jim,  like Biden, Obama had tools that he could have used, Biden refused to call witnesses who were waiting to be called giving us the first of several incompetent crackpots on the court. Obama never did what the republicans do so well reck havoc until they get what they want, if their ever was a case this was it! The Democrats always do this and I often think they play this game for 1 reason we are not a democracy we are an oligarchy. We have had several years where we have had majorities and what gets done? Nothing much, obama gave us corporate controlled healthcare, let bp’s oil flow into the gulf for over a month while do nothing except saying “BP’s got this”,killed Occupy, forgave the financial industry that busted the economy. Held no one, no one accountable for the wars in Afganistan,Iraq, torture rendition,droning, no he just added to it with 5 new wars several color revolutions and coups. The pivot to Asia and Afri-com   Then of course their was Russiagate , standing around as the tribes were being shot with water cannons and bullets in ND, telling his buddies how great he was for making the US the biggest oil producer. Then walked out of office a millionaire a few times over, and got on a yacht with his uber wealthy friends. If anything I think Obama is one of the most horrid people in the world.  He lied about his history to get in office he lied about what he would do in office and he really could care less about anyone in this country but his wealthy oligarch friends. He is a republican just like McCain was a democrat.

            Earthartist

        • #449468
          Mindwalker
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 389

          Repubs won’t even hear a nominee, democrats don’t do the same when they’re in power.  Recently, the reconcilliation bill that was to go along with the stimulus bill had lots of stuff that would be good for actual people, but they seem to pull back from it.  They don’t fight for these things.  It’s been happening over the decades a lot to the point where one has to question whether they actually believe in these things.  It would make sense that they don’t since Democrats have to get money from donors as well.

           

        • #449522
          game meat
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 1,533

          I do recall that there were some legal arguments that Obama could have simply appointed him under the circumstances. I’m going on memory here, but the core of the argument was that the senate had failed to do its job by refusing to hold a hearing, which amounted to a dereliction of duty on their part. Their refusal to fulfill their obligation gave the president the authority to act unilaterally. If nothing else, this could have been used as a threat to force the republicans to act and schedule the hearing, at least in theory.

          We’ll never know how that may have played out, and there were plenty of opposing arguments that claimed it would have been unconstitutional. However, there were actions the democrats could have taken beyond shrugging. They just chose not to use them.

          • #449591
            Jim Lane
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 889

            @eridani

            The Constitution gives the Senate a role. There have been plenty of occasions when the Senate refused to confirm a presidential nominee for the Supreme Court. It’s laughable to argue that vote-him-down is okay but don’t-hold-a-doomed-vote somehow empowers the President to proceed unilaterally, in brazen defiance of the Constitution.

            You note that “there were plenty of opposing arguments that claimed it would have been unconstitutional.” Those arguments go beyond “claimed” (with its connotation that the “claim” might be dubious). I sarcastically asked if Obama should have had Grassley and McConnell arrested.  Trying to seat a nominee without Senatorial approval would have been approximately the same level of ludicrous.

            You write, “If nothing else, this could have been used as a threat to force the republicans to act and schedule the hearing, at least in theory.” In the very very unlikely event that it would have had that effect, where’s the gain? The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee grudgingly hold a hearing and then vote not to report the nomination to the full Senate. The only difference is that now, instead of the supposed rule that McConnell simply made up, about not confirming a nominee in an election year, the Republicans can make the whole debate about Obama’s threat. They would accuse him of an unprecedented power grab – and they’d be right.

            Did the Democrats confine themselves to “shrugging”? No, they most assuredly did not. From Obama on down, they were lambasting the Republicans. It still came down to that inconvenient business of McConnell being the Majority Leader. Elections have consequences.

            • #449638
              game meat
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 1,533

              Politics is filled with ludicrous arguments from partisans (just say it with a straight face and try not to laugh).  In general, republicans use ridiculous arguments to justify carrying out their agenda, while the democrats use ridiculous arguments to justify not carrying out their agenda (alleged).  Either way, there is a pattern of absurdity.

              The Constitution gives the Senate a role. There have been plenty of occasions when the Senate refused to confirm a presidential nominee for the Supreme Court. It’s laughable to argue that vote-him-down is okay but don’t-hold-a-doomed-vote somehow empowers the President to proceed unilaterally, in brazen defiance of the Constitution.

              Apples and oranges. If the senate votes him down, then they have fulfilled their role. By refusing to act at all, they have not fulfilled their role. The president having the authority to act unilaterally is based on the assumption that the senate refused to do their duty. This is not my argument, but it is an argument, an argument no more or less silly than, oh, I don’t know, someone just randomly declaring that a nominee can’t be confirmed in an election year.

              Did the Democrats confine themselves to “shrugging”? No, they most assuredly did not.

              Ok, fine. They stomped their feet for a hot minute and then shrugged. Happy?

              Btw, Obama also had the option of putting Garland on the court via a recess appointment, and that’s not even unprecedented.

              If, as the democrats tell it, the supreme court is that important, if it is life or death, then it stands to reason that they should do anything in their power to fill a seat when the opportunity presents itself. Optics be damned. No retreat, no surrender!!! Charge!!! Not doing so is on them, not Stein voters, twitter trolls, russians, sexists, the boogaloo boys, manchin, or whatever scapegoat they’re running with this week.

              The bottom line is that the democrats had options that they declined to use. That’s just simply a fact. That possible actions may be described by some as “ludicrous” or as an “unprecedented power grab” would be the time to commence with the shrugging. There is a clear pattern of inconsistency between words and actions.

    • #449428
      MistaP
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,082

      Bob Chipman, that’s who I realized Paul Street writes like

      • #449518
        Earthartist
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,569

        Mind walker you said it much better then me! I get thinking about obama and I just get mad! I can in all honesty say I think he makes trump look better. With Trump we knew who he was, we knew his history, his corruption, his sexual behavior. With Obama we new the BS from his self love books that were created to make us believe he would be our savior! Maybe my anger stems from believing his years of living over seas would make him different, the truth is he was very much raised in the US intelligence world.  It is the last time I will believe anything from our government or the party( that being both parties that are one)

        Earthartist

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.