Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Lenonis]

Man you folks will turn anything into an argument huh?

[Fugus]

Not really. Rich people use $80K cars as their every day drivers. Just because it’s not $250k+ doesn’t mean it’s not a rich person’s car. Just really stupid rich people. Like Manchin.

I didn’t say that rich people didn’t use them, but they don’t consider it a rich man’s car. They consider it more an everyday car to use, not to show off.

What was getting pointed out is that poor people see that an 80k car as a car to show off like a rich car while the rich people see it like an all around car that’s not a rich man’s car but not a hunk of junk.

Why it was described as the poor man’s version of a rich man’s car.

[tehdang]

I'd have to see some sources of OSHA being successfully rebuked in court because my experience with them does not reflect that at all.

I don't know how familiar you are with OSHA but the standards/rules/regulations are written rather clearly, leaving little room for interpretation. The notion of an inspector "going to far in diagnosing a problem or correcting it" doesn't mesh well with what OSHA actually does. I've heard plenty of claims within the manufacturing world of such things occuring, but the end result was always that company receiving a fine, not them getting a court to dismiss it.

Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v American Petroleum Institute. Dayton Tire v. Secretary of Labor. (Remember that OSHA implicates the Secretary of Labor, which makes determinations separate from ALJ's, not some "inspector." Even in the last four years, companies sued to stop enforcement provisions in a new OSHA rule, and succeeded in forcing OSHA to change the rule (abandon requirements it was imposing, since the agency felt it would lose in court), and that lawsuit is ongoing.

Federal vaccines mandates are not new they go back centuries and even the right wing supreme court hasn't overturned them. Perhaps you disagree with the methodology but it is a necessary tool governments need in order to combat pandemics which we have had several since this country was founded. If you take that ability away and leave everything to the states you basically gut the governments ability to combat future pandemics.

The Supreme Court routinely upholds state vaccine mandates. Because states have broad ability to decide things for its citizens when compared to the limited powers of the Federal government. You will not be able to cite a federal vaccine mandate case going back twenty years, much less centuries.

[Ripster42]

The Supreme Court routinely upholds state vaccine mandates. Because states have broad ability to decide things for its citizens when compared to the limited powers of the Federal government. You will not be able to cite a federal vaccine mandate case going back twenty years, much less centuries.

For others wondering: SCOTUS has only upheld mandates for gov'ts below federal level. Their rulings however, were all based upon the public good outweighing personal freedoms. That being said, with the current makeup of SCOTUS, I wouldn't bet on that philosophy holding true for the federal gov't.

Edit: If I had to guess, it's going to be a 5-4 ruling saying the fed gov't doesn't have that power or a 6-3 saying they do. Alito and thomas are never going to approve of increasing fed power in this way, with democrats currently holding the reins. Who knows with ACB: as she was only a judge for 3 years before elevation, there's not a whole lot to go on, but I suspect she's too conservative (she's an originalist, and as previously noted, no prior SCOTUS judgements for federal level) to go along with it. She's catholic though, so it's possible she she'd approve. Kavanaugh and gorsuch are crapshoots. There's an allowance for religious exemptions in biden's mandate, so I don't see gorsuch being dead set against it, and kavanaugh is too mercurial to be able to pin down at all on this. If it was just the CDC saying this, without biden directly commenting on it, he'd definitely be against it, but as biden has made clear that he backs the mandate, I don't know. He's definitely leery about expanding executive power though. The other 4 I assume are locks for approval.

[Shadowferal]

Man you folks will turn anything into an argument huh?

OH NO WE DIDN'T!!!11

um..yea okay..that's arguey...and yea, that's a word!

[tehdang]

For others wondering: SCOTUS has only upheld mandates for gov'ts below federal level. Their rulings however, were all based upon the public good outweighing personal freedoms. That being said, with the current makeup of SCOTUS, I wouldn't bet on that philosophy holding true for the federal gov't.

Edit: If I had to guess, it's going to be a 5-4 ruling saying the fed gov't doesn't have that power or a 6-3 saying they do. Alito and thomas are never going to approve of increasing fed power in this way, with democrats currently holding the reins. Who knows with ACB: as she was only a judge for 3 years before elevation, there's not a whole lot to go on, but I suspect she's too conservative (she's an originalist, and as previously noted, no prior SCOTUS judgements for federal level) to go along with it. She's catholic though, so it's possible she she'd approve. Kavanaugh and gorsuch are crapshoots. There's an allowance for religious exemptions in biden's mandate, so I don't see gorsuch being dead set against it, and kavanaugh is too mercurial to be able to pin down at all on this. If it was just the CDC saying this, without biden directly commenting on it, he'd definitely be against it, but as biden has made clear that he backs the mandate, I don't know. He's definitely leery about expanding executive power though. The other 4 I assume are locks for approval.

Reminder that the administration chose to make this push through OSHA.

Originalism as a concept with OSHA's act favors not granting workplace mandates for individual vaccines. Ask if the congressmen and president in 1970 (Nixon) would rationally believe they had just extended federal power into the traditionally state venue of vaccines (in schools, etc). Kavanaugh is still hard to predict. I'd even go Kavanaugh and Roberts being much more likely to support it compared to Gorsuch. He's more of a skeptic than even Roberts of government power and vague applications of law (Sessions v Dimaya). I still believe 5-4 or 6-3 depending on Roberts and Kavanaugh.

[Fugus]

Depends on the Mas. If it’s a top end one it’s not everyday. Nobody who is poor can afford a Maserati. Thus, it’s a rich person’s car. Even if it’s their every day beater. See, for a regular person they don’t have an $80k car as their everyday. At best that’s their fancy car that they are overspending on. It’s weird people keep trying to debate this though. It’s a rich man’s car, bottom line. He’s a rich man, no? Dude is holding back help for the people who need it while driving around in $80k cars and living on what amounts to a yacht. He deserves every bit of derision and people mocking those who point out his expensive car are being silly.

Rich people don't see it as a rich mans car, they see it as the everyday car. And plenty of poor people will splurge on that car because they see it as "The rich man's car" when even the rich person doesn't, hence why it was described as "A poor person's version of a rich mans car".

But lower middle class people can and do splurge on stuff like that even if it overextends themselves and puts them in debt if they are a car person. Or those people whom you see where their home is a beat up old trailer that is more rust than metal but have that 80k car in the driveway. There are many of them out there, but I have seen a few in my life. Or those who come into a windfall of money through either a death in the family or a lottery winning or maybe doing illegal stuff for a while.

Normally poor people can't afford it, which is why it earned that description. But some do through either luck or over extension on their finances or crime. And they pimp it too.

But do rich people consider it to be a rich mans car? No, not really.

So again, "It's the poor mans version of a rich man's car." The rich man's version of the rich mans car is almost twice that much.

[Fugus]

Rich people seeing something as an everyday item doesn’t mean it isn’t for rich fucks.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the poor mans version of a rich mans item. It's something a poor person can legitimately obtain through multiple legitimate means and pretend they are rich with while the rich person will never see that as a rich mans item. Which is why the entire phrase was being applied to it.

No person who could legitimately be considered rich would really ever consider that to be a rich mans car, maybe an upper middle class car but never a rich mans car. While the lower middle class and poor will consider it very much as that and treat it as such.

Well, I am off, later.

[Breccia]

Well, it's good to see at least a little cooperation.

For years, maybe decades, Republicans and Democrats, local and national leaders, have really not kept up with pace with infrastructure. And that is one of the key things that taxpayers actually pay for.

When they pay their taxes they want basic things and roads and bridges and tunnels and ports, ensuring that, you know, they have clean water, ensuring that they have an adequate sewer system, these are the things that people expect when they pay taxes

-- Rep. Malliotakis [iR-oNY]

[Draco-Onis]

Well, it's good to see at least a little cooperation.


-- Rep. Malliotakis [iR-oNY]

May as well say something nice since their days in office are numbered, Marjorie Taylor Greene has published the names of these traitors and Trump is furious. In the house of representative going against the fuhrer means early retirement.

[Levelfive]

I'd have to see some sources of OSHA being successfully rebuked in court because my experience with them does not reflect that at all.

I don't know how familiar you are with OSHA but the standards/rules/regulations are written rather clearly, leaving little room for interpretation. The notion of an inspector "going to far in diagnosing a problem or correcting it" doesn't mesh well with what OSHA actually does. I've heard plenty of claims within the manufacturing world of such things occuring, but the end result was always that company receiving a fine, not them getting a court to dismiss it.

Keep in mind that Gorsuch seems to be gunning for Biden's power to delegate any powers to federal agencies.

The Supreme Court’s coming war with Joe Biden, explained
The Supreme Court is poised to give itself a veto power over much of the Biden administration’s authority.

"But the right’s approach to federal agencies shifted drastically during the Obama administration. With the GOP’s grip on the presidency waning at the very same time that they had a firm hold on the judiciary, conservatives had an obvious interest in increasing the judiciary’s power to strike down new rules pushed by federal agencies. By Obama’s second term, the conservative Federalist Society’s national lawyers convention became a showcase of proposals to deconstruct the administrative state.

All of this culminated in Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in Gundy v. United States (2019), which called for strict new limits on federal agencies — and for the judiciary to even strike down many federal regulations as unconstitutional. Though Gorsuch’s opinion was a dissent — that is, he didn’t yet have a majority for it — five justices now on the Court have largely endorsed his framework, which relies on a conservative legal principle known as “nondelegation.”

In other words, it may be only a matter of time before the Court starts striking down Biden administration regulations that rely on legal arguments that would have been treated as nonsense just a decade ago."

____________________________________________________________________________

The conservative judiciary is accruing powers to itself as part of The Federalist Society, other conservative think tanks, and McConnell's long-term plan to take legislating out of the hands of legislators to put redress beyond the reach of the people:

"But these conservative calls for judicial restraint have since been replaced with bold demands for judicial intervention against federal agencies once Reaganism faded and Obama’s liberalism gained steam. A new conservative approach to administrative law, which seeks to concentrate power within a judiciary dominated by Republican appointees, is now ascendant."

Agreeing broadly with state mandates cannot be taken as a harbinger of how they'll rule on a case that's about a Democratic president's authority.

[Edge-]

"But these conservative calls for judicial restraint have since been replaced with bold demands for judicial intervention against federal agencies once Reaganism faded and Obama’s liberalism gained steam. A new conservative approach to administrative law, which seeks to concentrate power within a judiciary dominated by Republican appointees, is now ascendant."

Which is why we keep talking about how important it is that the Democrats have even their slim non-majority in the Senate. Yes, they struggle to push through bills, but they're getting a lot of judges on the bench to counter this shit (not activist liberal judges which would be the proper counter, but at least not activist conservative judges).

Fuck Manchin, but we need his dumb ass.

[Kaleredar]

Which is why we keep talking about how important it is that the Democrats have even their slim non-majority in the Senate. Yes, they struggle to push through bills, but they're getting a lot of judges on the bench to counter this shit (not activist liberal judges which would be the proper counter, but at least not activist conservative judges).

Fuck Manchin, but we need his dumb ass.

Like I said before, the Trump administration should be proof that “nothing” is far from the worst thing that can happen.

[Levelfive]

Which is why we keep talking about how important it is that the Democrats have even their slim non-majority in the Senate. Yes, they struggle to push through bills, but they're getting a lot of judges on the bench to counter this shit (not activist liberal judges which would be the proper counter, but at least not activist conservative judges).

Fuck Manchin, but we need his dumb ass.

Agreed. But even that is a short term measure when what's really needed is Supreme Court reform, which we are not going to get because even the commission charged with studying it won't bring itself to give an honest accounting, and instead withers from the urgency of the moment with some craven "both sides" bullshit.

[Shadowferal]

Keep in mind that Gorsuch seems to be gunning for Biden's power to delegate any powers to federal agencies.

*cough*
https://www.vox.com/22276279/supreme...-nondelegation

[Levelfive]

Thank you, should be working now.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Man you folks will turn anything into an argument huh?

Being far left or far right will do that to you.

[Lenonis]

Being far left or far right will do that to you.

Pretty sure your political affiliation has zero to do with your opinion on the Maserati as a luxury car.

[Kaleredar]

Pretty sure your political affiliation has zero to do with your opinion on the Maserati as a luxury car.

No, but it is a good testament to how uncontroversial and relatively even-keeled Biden's presidency is when people argue about the wholly unrelated semantics of a car for several pages instead of talking about the person the thread is focused around.

[Draco-Onis]

No, but it is a good testament to how uncontroversial and relatively even-keeled Biden's presidency is when people argue about the wholly unrelated semantics of a car for several pages instead of talking about the person the thread is focused around.

Frankly not quite sure that it's a good thing looking at the pattern of presidents we have had Americans want someone who shakes things up it's just they haven't gotten the right flavor yet. The polling seems to support this as well with Biden and Kamala's approval ratings in bad territory.