Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[JohnBrown1917]

I'm very sorry to disappoint you. I am cautioned to look at the totality of responses to my posts and decide whether or not it can be construed to annoy or outrage other users, as if it were the primary intent, and I cannot conclude other than it's best to let things be for now, and broach the topic again when current events make it newsworthy. For now, you know my true opinion on the subject. As for the seriousness of your inquiry, consider your inclusion of "Magic the Clan Gathering."

Same as previous: A couple notches ahead of the moonbat scale of absolute insanity, but the same or slightly worse than Ilhan's comments on Jews and Israel, and those she associates with or praises, throughout the years. I support attempts to remove her from committee assignments in regards to foreign affairs, in furtherance of establishing, or rebuking, norms of opposite party partisan removal from committees.

As regards current news.
Major rebuke for Biden on OSHA mandate. HHS & Health Workers survives 5-4. Biden also strangely decided to give a speech in Georgia the day after their biggest university's football championship, on legislation that's dead on arrival in the Senate. I guess he's given up on major legislation passage this year, and is hoping to turn the subject of legislative inaction into a campaign message for Democrats in the midterms 2022.

The speech connected the people opposed to abolishing the filibuster to segregationists of old. Elected Democrats and Republicans, no difference. His approval current sits very low according to Quinnipiac: 33% approve Quinnipiac.

Ah, yes, the classic take of labelling all criticism of Israel as anti Semitic.

[PACOX]

Ah, yes, the classic take of labelling all criticism of Israel as anti Semitic.

Now ask those people why they believe Israel is above criticism.

[PACOX]

Let’s not attempt to derail into ridiculous religious discussions.

Well that's one of the reasons. In general they use Israel as a proxy for a number of things but you're right that it's better to just avoid the discussion.

[beanman12345]

I still need to find the full ruling, but I didn't see what precedent/law the cited in saying OSHA couldn't issue the mandate. Just a quip that "they've never done it before" which...doesn't seem like an actual legal argument.

The ruling is basically, that while the workplace is dangerous because of covid, the workplace is not dangerous because of covid. Yeah no precedent or law, as they killed OSHA while working remotely, because they're tyrants, separation of powers my ass.

[Edge-]

The ruling is basically, that while the workplace is dangerous because of covid, the workplace is not dangerous because of covid. Yeah no precedent or law, as they killed OSHA while working remotely, because they're tyrants, separation of powers my ass.

I'm reading now and it seems like, predictably, they're making very lawyery arguments with a lot of emphasis on words like occupation(al) and employment, arguing that this is not a "workplace" safety standard and since it is broad and neutral rather than specific and targeted, they don't have this authority which...is a bit odd. The implication seems to be that covid doesn't fall under OSHA because it's not specific to a workplace/occupation.

Basically, because potentially getting covid isn't normally a part of the job, that it doesn't count as a workplace hazard.

I'm only like a quarter of the way through the majority opinion so far, not sure if there are any concurrent opinions beyond this, but so far this is sounding like a lot of horse shit. But I'm not a lawyer, so if there are folks with legal backgrounds that are applicable I'd be interested to learn more. Gonna try to find some once I finish reading it.

Link to the opinion - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1a244_hgci.pdf

To make it explicit -

The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating “work-related dangers.” Response Brief for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qualifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather.

I'm sure all the retail/service employees all around the US are screaming that yeah, you out of touch fuckwits, it's very much an occupational hazard for them. And has been since the start of this shit. But hey, I guess what they're doing isn't an "occupation" or something.

That is not to say OSHA lacks authority to regulate occupation-specific risks related to COVID–19. Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace, targeted regulations are plainly permissible. We do not doubt, for example, that OSHA could regulate researchers who work with the COVID–19 virus.

So unless your job is literally working on covid research, it doesn't count.

It is telling that OSHA, in its half century of existence, has never before adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind—addressing a threat that is untethered, in any causal sense, from the workplace. This “lack of historical precedent,” coupled with the breadth of authority that the Secretary now claims, is a “telling indication” that the mandate extends beyond the agency’s legitimate reach.

There hasn't been a pandemic like covid in the half century since OSHA has existed they can't do it because...they haven't done it before. Which is the most horse shittiest of justifications around.

Bonus points, the "telling indication" is a reference to a ruling Justice Kavanaugh made when he was Judge Kavanaugh - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...pinion-1963375

The ruling on the referenced case with the quote from Kavanaugh. Though I don't have it in me to dig into that case, I gave it a quick look and it seems too time consuming atm -_-

[Kaleredar]

I'm reading now and it seems like, predictably, they're making very lawyery arguments with a lot of emphasis on words like occupation(al) and employment, arguing that this is not a "workplace" safety standard and since it is broad and neutral rather than specific and targeted, they don't have this authority which...is a bit odd. The implication seems to be that covid doesn't fall under OSHA because it's not specific to a workplace/occupation.

Basically, because potentially getting covid isn't normally a part of the job, that it doesn't count as a workplace hazard.

I'm only like a quarter of the way through the majority opinion so far, not sure if there are any concurrent opinions beyond this, but so far this is sounding like a lot of horse shit. But I'm not a lawyer, so if there are folks with legal backgrounds that are applicable I'd be interested to learn more. Gonna try to find some once I finish reading it.

Link to the opinion - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1a244_hgci.pdf

To make it explicit -



I'm sure all the retail/service employees all around the US are screaming that yeah, you out of touch fuckwits, it's very much an occupational hazard for them. And has been since the start of this shit. But hey, I guess what they're doing isn't an "occupation" or something.



So unless your job is literally working on covid research, it doesn't count.



There hasn't been a pandemic like covid in the half century since OSHA has existed they can't do it because...they haven't done it before. Which is the most horse shittiest of justifications around.

Bonus points, the "telling indication" is a reference to a ruling Justice Kavanaugh made when he was Judge Kavanaugh - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...pinion-1963375

The ruling on the referenced case with the quote from Kavanaugh. Though I don't have it in me to dig into that case, I gave it a quick look and it seems too time consuming atm -_-

Basically the ruling appears to be that "because COVID has become so common, we can't force a business, company, or corporation to try and stop the spread of it."

Which is idiotic.


It's all, of course, politically motivated. The GOP relies on the illusion of normalcy while championing "perceived freedoms" (read, not actual freedoms) to lead. People wearing masks and being made to get vaccines both shatters the illusion of normalcy and opposing requirements for people to wear masks and get vaccines makes them seem like the champions of freedom in that you're "free to do whatever you want with your body," regardless of the dangers you pose to others. (Unless of course you're, say, a woman trying to get an abortion, in which case they're totally okay with bounty hunters haranguing you and the medical clinicians you visit.)

Additionally, things like deploying vaccines, creating and organizing testing sites, creating mask laws and enforcement procedures would require them to be interested in actually, you know, leading. The GOP possesses neither the aptitude nor ability to do that.

[Armael]

Sexual harassment isn't exclusive to a workplace, because you can be sexually assaulted at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. So laws made that try to prevent that(in a workplace, or anywhere) are wrong because it's not specifically a workplace hazard? See how I applied this logic to make that majority opinion look like the steaming pile of horseshit it is?

[bladeXcrasher]

Sexual harassment isn't exclusive to a workplace, because you can be sexually assaulted at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. So laws made that try to prevent that(in a workplace, or anywhere) are wrong because it's not specifically a workplace hazard? See how I applied this logic to make that majority opinion look like the steaming pile of horseshit it is?

They don't think sexual harassment is an issue either though.

[Edge-]

Sexual harassment isn't exclusive to a workplace, because you can be sexually assaulted at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. So laws made that try to prevent that(in a workplace, or anywhere) are wrong because it's not specifically a workplace hazard? See how I applied this logic to make that majority opinion look like the steaming pile of horseshit it is?

That's...not what was being discussed at all. The ruling was about OSHA's authorities, not the authority of the Legislature. That's not a remotely accurate application of the logic that logic since it's not related to laws around preventing X or Y. Contrary, they're fairly explicit that if there was a Legislative basis for this they wouldn't bat an eye. A fairly easy argument to make for partisan judges when they know that said legislation would never pass, which they noted with their reference to the pointless Senate vote against mask mandates.

[Armael]

It's a fine application, but I don't want to play semantics. Fires, asbestos, lead, carbon monoxide poisoning are not exclusive to a workplace, but OSHA can enforce those. Happy?

[Dontrike]

I'm very sorry to disappoint you. I am cautioned to look at the totality of responses to my posts and decide whether or not it can be construed to annoy or outrage other users, as if it were the primary intent, and I cannot conclude other than it's best to let things be for now, and broach the topic again when current events make it newsworthy. For now, you know my true opinion on the subject. As for the seriousness of your inquiry, consider your inclusion of "Magic the Clan Gathering."

.....Let me get this straight, you're entire response is disappointed because I called a racist a name? Sorry, but I have no sympathy for people like her and neither should you.

[Levelfive]

That's...not what was being discussed at all. The ruling was about OSHA's authorities, not the authority of the Legislature. That's not a remotely accurate application of the logic that logic since it's not related to laws around preventing X or Y. Contrary, they're fairly explicit that if there was a Legislative basis for this they wouldn't bat an eye. A fairly easy argument to make for partisan judges when they know that said legislation would never pass, which they noted with their reference to the pointless Senate vote against mask mandates.

It doesn't have to be a one to one correspondence to aptly demonstrate how ridiculous their reasoning is.

As to the bolded, it goes like this:

• McConnell shatters norms to stack a now fully corrupt court with hacks handpicked by the Federalist Society, on specious reasoning, and which he would have done irrespective of Harry Reid, by stealing a seat, lifting the filibuster for SC nominees, etc.
  
  
• Court delivers appalling decisions to dismantle the administrative state; further consolidate Republican power to gerrymander, slop more money into campaigns, suppress votes, etc.; finish transferring the nation's wealth to the already wealthy by gutting the power of regulatory agencies (and hence, Democratic administrations), deliver some goodies for right wing loons, all based on specious legal reasoning ("nondelegation" isn't really a thing)
  
  
• And this corrupt court says, "Congress can check us by passing legislation," which, as you note, the court of course knows can never happen because of the legislative filibuster, and that the Senate will use it in tandem with the court's agenda to prevent any redress by voters (which is to say democracy), now aided and abetted by Manchin and Sinema, who are certainly personally benefiting from protecting the filibuster over the republic (and the planet, but whatever).
  

Again, I'm going to strongly urge people to read this--it'll be important for when they finally deliver for the Kochs et al and gut the EPAs authority as well, and generally every Democratic administration's power to implement any policy (though there's a good chance this is our last Democratic administration anyway): https://www.vox.com/22276279/supreme...-nondelegation

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.

Roberts gave some of the game away here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-mandates.html

COVID Is an Emergency. To SCOTUS’s Conservatives, It’s Also an Opportunity.
Where the liberal justices see sickness and death, the conservatives see a chance to crush government.

"The chief justice continued: 'It seems to me that the more and more mandates pop up in different agencies, I wonder if it’s not fair for us to look at the court as a general exercise of power by the federal government and then ask the questions of, well, why doesn’t Congress have a say in this?'"

This is a Republican project, literally decades in the making, to overtake the mechanisms of government from pesky things like democracy, and they're on the cusp of it finally being fully realized.

[Paranoid Android]

I still need to find the full ruling, but I didn't see what precedent/law the cited in saying OSHA couldn't issue the mandate. Just a quip that "they've never done it before" which...doesn't seem like an actual legal argument.

Remember this ruling by Neil Gorsuch when he was on the Appeals or Fed court(?).

The case took seven years and went before seven judges but in the end, Detroit native Alphonse Maddin celebrated victory against the delivery firm that had fired him for seeking warmth after his truck broke down on a dangerously cold winter night.

Of the seven judges, six sided with Maddin but one found in favor of the company and wrote a scathing dissent.

That lone judge was Neil Gorsuch, who shortly afterwards made Donald Trump’s shortlist for the supreme court, to fill the seat left by the late Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch is now appearing on Capitol Hill at his confirmation hearings.

This dude had corporate judge written all over him. As far as the other "conservative judges", if anything I was always confident they were going to rule for pro-corporate, anti-worker rulings from here until eternity.

[BlackDruid96]

I see Biden is willing to endorse the changes to the filibuster. Its great to see, but I really dislike their timing on it. He needed to push that last year.

I can see this blowing up in their faces with how slow they are about it. Can see them pushing this JUST before the elections only to have Manchin block the stuff anyways in the hopes of the GOP taking back control due to gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement and then using it to ram stuff down our throats trying to point to the DNC for changing it instead of how they are in charge against the will of the people due to their screwing around.

I understand getting stuff I dislike passed because the majority voted for it and so they got it, it's another thing entirely when they start pushing stuff the majority expressly voted against but the minority stole power through screwing around and did it anyways. Doubly so when their stuff damages us as a nation as clear as day to anyone educated on the subject matter but they don't care because it satisfies their pride and ego and/or it doesn't matter to them because they won't be there to be stuck cleaning up the mess as they will be gone and can move.

Changing the Filibuster is a terrible idea, when Republicans are back in power you will be wishing for the Filibuster.

[GreyStriker]

Changing the Filibuster is a terrible idea, when Republicans are back in power you will be wishing for the Filibuster.

When the Republicans are back in power, could they not just remove the filibuster any time they wanted?

[GreyStriker]

If they wanted to they could have during Trump’s first 2 years. They already have it gone from what they wanted though, so they’ve been content to leave it intact to obstruct legislation.

So, in effect, the filibuster has become a self-imposed limitation on power by the majority party. Since the Democrats do not have a true majority thanks to S&M, they are powerless to change it.

[bladeXcrasher]

So, in effect, the filibuster has become a self-imposed limitation on power by the majority party. Since the Democrats do not have a true majority thanks to S&M, they are powerless to change it.

It's a convenient way for Democrats to posture. We wanted to do XYZ, but couldn't because of the filibuster.

[BlackDruid96]

When the Republicans are back in power, could they not just remove the filibuster any time they wanted?

But why would they? Once the door is open, who's going to close it?

[DarkTZeratul]

But why would they?

Because the filibuster is only useful to them as long as it keeps Democrats from doing stuff. Once it's being used against them, they'll kill it without a second thought. I can say this with confidence because it's precisely what they did for Neil Gorsuch's supreme court nomination.

[Edge-]

But why would they? Once the door is open, who's going to close it?

It doesn't close, that's the point.

Remember, this entire discussion isn't about killing the filibuster entirely. It would still very much exist if any member of the Senate chooses to stand behind a podium and speak for as long as they can.

What this does is kill the lazy, low effort filibuster threat that can kill legislation without actually doing anything. It's a horse-shit tactic that shouldn't exist. The filibuster already has a sordid, racist history to its name and should go entirely, but that's not what's being proposed.

If Ted Cruz wants to read through the Dr. Seuss library again, he's more than welcome to. He'll just have to actually do it rather than just threaten to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.businessinsider.com/immi...bs-work-2022-1

Don't tell Republicans, the traditionally more conservative leaning Chamber of Commerce is promoting more immigration as a way to combat inflation and increase the pool of workers to fill all the empty jobs right now.