[News] Post a Political News Story

Ongoing discussion of the political news of the day. This thread is for 'smaller' stories that don't call for their own thread. If a story blows up, please start a new thread for it.

Forced birthers. Theocratic zealots. Assholes.

Whatever you call them, they're certainly not pro-life.

An atheist and an agnostic were both fired for refusing to attend mandatory prayer meetings.

The company owner led these sessions, which included "Bible readings, Christian devotionals, and solicitation of prayer requests from employees," according to the EEOC's complaint. At times, prayers were requested for "poor performing employees who were identified by name." The owner also took a roll call and reprimanded employees who missed the meetings.

Bet you can guess how this’ll go when Clarence Thomas and his gang get ahold of it.

Seth wrote:

An atheist and an agnostic were both fired for refusing to attend mandatory prayer meetings.

The company owner led these sessions, which included "Bible readings, Christian devotionals, and solicitation of prayer requests from employees," according to the EEOC's complaint. At times, prayers were requested for "poor performing employees who were identified by name." The owner also took a roll call and reprimanded employees who missed the meetings.

Bet you can guess how this’ll go when Clarence Thomas and his gang get ahold of it.

The EEOC has claimed that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

Hmm well since racism is dead, maybe it's time to revisit the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act...

I guess Youtube's done with Pride, since today I got hit with ads for something from Jordan Peterson and a low-budget action flick starring Gina Carano.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Hmm well since racism is dead, maybe it's time to revisit the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act...

I expect you thought you were joking.

CaptainCrowbar wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

Hmm well since racism is dead, maybe it's time to revisit the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act...

I expect you thought you were joking.

I'm not sure Clarence Thomas will vote for anything that could restrict his own rights. He wouldn't want to be forced to hang out with the non-cool kids.

The other five might, though.

Keldar wrote:
CaptainCrowbar wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

Hmm well since racism is dead, maybe it's time to revisit the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act...

I expect you thought you were joking.

I'm not sure Clarence Thomas will vote for anything that could restrict his own rights. He wouldn't want to be forced to hang out with the non-cool kids.

The other five might, though.

He’s rich, he’s not going to see the consequences of any of his rulings.

Clarence considers himself in the in-group. So,

the definition of conservatism wrote:

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

And, he's right in that he will never face the consequences of his choices to punish others for existing, even if they're the same as him.

ruhk wrote:

He’s rich, he’s not going to see the consequences of any of his rulings.

Seth wrote:

And, he's right in that he will never face the consequences of his choices to punish others for existing, even if they're the same as him.

Rich black conservatives are still black, and rich white conservatives are still racist. I guarantee no matter how much money he has, if segregation becomes legal again, there will still be restaurants telling him that they don't serve his kind here.

I think before that there will be places that won't serve him and his wife.
As a matter of fact, I would not be surprised if the guy is house bound even now.
Can you imagine the ire he must receive everywhere he now goes?

I don’t think not being allowed to eat somewhere really counts as consequences to the absolute misery Thomas has visited upon this nation, but apologies if my post read as class reductionist. That was not the intent.

You know, with all of this talk off fetus viability and hearing heartbeats at 6 weeks, I am curious about what the pro life movement is doing about it. If they want to ban abortions, if they want to claim humanity earlier and earlier in the term, then why don't they fund research on it? They take the easy way out with conjecture and speculation in an information war. They should be taking the difficult steps of researching incubation and fertilization techniques that increase the success rates without increasing the instance of multiple viable fetuses. That should be the pro life stance right? The ultimate would be protecting the mother and the fetus for the healthiest possible life for both.

If they were truly pro life, they'd put at least some effort into... life. How about researching procedures to limit and handle ectopic pregnancies such that it reduces those devastating life choices. You don't get to limit women's rights to their bodies any further until you provide housing, safety, employment and care for them.

If they have enough money for bounties, they have enough money to raise the minimum wage, housing, offer long term paid family leave, and free prenatal care.

Maybe that is how we defeat it. By bankrupting these people. Robocall report all the GOP supporters of these bills and then sue and tie them up in courts until they can't sustain it. TBH it is already unsustainable, but we can make it apparent much quicker and limit the damage they do.

Sadly/Unsurprisingly- Logic cannot be applied to anything on the Republican side.

edit: wrong thread. too many tabs

Hope you're all ready for "The Woke Scare".

(You really don't have to wonder what they're planning anymore. They're doing it in public, quite visibly.)

That is already happening. I guess it would be a bottom up thing that started with the local school boards.

This seems to fit here.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...

1/ The Nightmare Scenario SCOTUS is Plotting For the 2024 Election Takeover:
2/ Six Republicans on the Supreme Court just announced — a story that has largely flown under the nation’s political radar — that they’ll consider pre-rigging the presidential election of 2024.
3/ Here’s how one aspect of it could work out, if they go along with the GOP’s arguments that will be before the Court this October:
4/ It’s November, 2024, and the presidential race between Biden and DeSantis has been tabulated by the states and called by the networks. Biden won 84,355,740 votes to DeSantis’ 77,366,412, clearly carrying the popular vote.
5/ But the popular vote isn’t enough: George W. Bush lost to Al Gore by a half-million votes and Donald Trump lost to Hillary Clinton by 3 million votes but both ended up in the White House. What matters is the Electoral College vote, and that looks good for Biden, too.
6/ As CNN is reporting, the outcome is a virtual clone of the 2020 election: Biden carries the same states he did that year and DeSantis gets all the Trump states.
7/ It’s 306 to 232 in the Electoral College, a 74-vote Electoral College lead for Biden, at least as calculated by CNN and the rest of the media. Biden is heading to the White House for another 4 years.
8/ Until the announcement comes out of Georgia. Although Biden won the popular vote in Georgia, their legislature decided it can overrule the popular vote and just awarded the state’s 16 electoral votes to DeSantis instead of Biden.
9/ An hour later we hear from five other states with Republican-controlled legislatures where Biden won the majority of the vote, just like he had in 2020: North Carolina (15 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20) and Arizona (11).
10/ Each has followed Georgia’s lead and their legislatures have awarded their Electoral College votes — even though Biden won the popular vote in each state — to DeSantis.
11/ Thus, a total of 88 Electoral College votes from those six states move from Biden to DeSantis, who’s declared the winner and will be sworn in on January 20, 2025.
12/ Wolf Blitzer announces that DeSantis has won the election, and millions of people pour into the streets to protest. They’re met with a hail of bullets as Republican-affiliated militias have been rehearsing for this exact moment.
13/ Just as happened when Pinochet’s militias shot into crowds as he took over Chile, when Mussolini’s volunteer militia the Blackshirts killed civilians as he took over Italy, and Hitler’s Brownshirts did in Germany, their allies among the police and Army refuse to intervene.
14/ After a few thousand people lay dead in the streets of two dozen cities, the police begin to round up the surviving “instigators,” who are charged with seditious conspiracy for resisting the Republican legislatures of their states.
15/ After he’s sworn in on January 20th, President DeSantis points to the ongoing demonstrations, declares a permanent state of emergency, and suspends future elections, just as Trump had repeatedly told the world he planned for 2020.
16/ Sound far fetched?
17/ Six Republicans on the Supreme Court just announced that one of the first cases they’ll decide next year could include whether that very scenario is constitutional or not. And it almost certainly is.
18/ Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution lays out the process clearly, and it doesn’t even once mention the popular vote or the will of the people:
19/ “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...
20/ “The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons … which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
21/ “The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President…”
22/ It’s not particularly ambiguous, even as clarified by the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
23/ Neither mentions the will of the people, although the Electoral Count Act requires each state’s governor to certify the vote before passing it along to Washington, DC. And half of those states have Democratic governors.
24/ Which brings us to the Supreme Court’s probable 2023 decision. As Robert Barnes wrote yesterday for The Washington Post:
25/ “The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will consider what would be a radical change in the way federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures sole authority…
26/ to set the rules for contests even if their actions violated state constitutions and resulted in extreme partisan gerrymandering for congressional seats.”
27/ While the main issue being debated in Moore v Harper, scheduled for a hearing this October, is a gerrymander that conflicts with North Carolina’s constitution, the issue at the core of the debate is what’s called the “Independent State Legislature Doctrine.”
28/ It literally gives state legislatures the power to pre-rig or simply hand elections to the candidate of their choice.
29/ As NPR notes:
30/ “The independent state legislature theory was first invoked by three conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices in the celebrated Bush v. Gore case that handed the 2000 election victory to George W. Bush.
31/ “In that case, the three cited it to support the selection of a Republican slate of presidential electors.”
32/ Those three were Rehnquist, Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, now the seniormost member of the Court. They wrote in their concurring opinion in Bush v Gore:
33/ “The federal questions that ultimately emerged in this case are not substantial. Article II provides that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” …
34/ “But as we indicated in our remand of the earlier case, in a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail.”
35/ That doctrine — the basis of John Eastman and Donald Trump’s effort to get states to submit multiple slates of electors — asserts that a plain reading of Article II and
36/ the 12th Amendment of the Constitution says that each state’s legislature has final say in which candidate gets their states’ Electoral College vote, governors and the will of the voters be damned.
37/ The Republicans point out that the Constitution says that it’s up to the states — “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” — to decide which presidential candidate gets their Electoral College votes.
38/ But the Electoral Count Act requires a governor’s sign-off, and half those states have Democratic governors. Which has precedence, the Constitution or the Act?
39/ If the Supreme Court says it’s the US Constitution rather than the Electoral Count Act, states’ constitutions, state laws, or the votes of their citizens, the scenario outlined above becomes not just possible but very likely.
40/ After all, the Constitution only mentions the states’ legislatures — which are all Republican controlled — so the unwillingness of the Democratic governors of Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to sign off on the Electoral College votes becomes moot.
41/ Under this circumstance DeSantis becomes president, the third Republican president in the 21st century, and also the third Republican President to have lost the popular vote election yet ended up in the White House.
42/ This scenario isn’t just plausible: it’s probable. GOP-controlled states are already changing their state laws to allow for it, and
43/ Republican strategists are gaming out which states have Republican legislatures willing to override the votes of their people to win the White House for the Republican candidate.
44/ Those state legislators who still embrace Trump and this theory are getting the support of large pools of rightwing billionaires’ dark money.
45/ As the highly respected conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig recently wrote:
46/ “Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine …
47/ “and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress' own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency.”
48/ I take no satisfaction in having accurately predicted — in March of 2020 — how Trump and his buddies would try to steal the election in January of 2021. Or how the Supreme Court would blow up the Environmental Protection Agency.
49/ Trump’s January 6th effort failed because every contested state had laws on the books requiring all of their Electoral College votes to go to whichever candidate won the popular vote in the state.
50/ That will not be the case in 2024. As we are watching, the Supreme Court — in collaboration with state legislatures through activists like Ginny Thomas — are setting that election up right now in front of us in real time.
51/ We damn well better be planning for this, because it’s likely coming our way in just a bit more than two short years.
farley3k wrote:

This seems to fit here.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...

That is terrifying. I'm already voting as hard as I can. Beyond that, I honestly don't see what action I, in a blue state, can take today to prevent it.

My family is actively engaged in local politics and volunteering. We'll keep doing that while it makes a difference.

But if/when things turn violent, who can say? We'll do what we must.

Yeah I wondered what I can realistically do. I live in a blue dot of a red state so they are not even going to have to twist anything to get our electors. I vote, I donate to organizations I think are fighting against it but really it feels inadequate.

It feels like fascists have taken the long game of wining over states over the last few decades and that wasn't envisioned by the founding fathers so the system isn't build to stop it.

The only think I can kind of think of is moving to someplace the CA - which will be on the side I agree with more when civil war breaks out.

farley3k wrote:

This seems to fit here.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...

18/ Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution lays out the process clearly, and it doesn’t even once mention the popular vote or the will of the people:
19/ “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...
20/ “The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons … which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
21/ “The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President…”
22/ It’s not particularly ambiguous, even as clarified by the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
23/ Neither mentions the will of the people, although the Electoral Count Act requires each state’s governor to certify the vote before passing it along to Washington, DC. And half of those states have Democratic governors.

a) That's an awful lot of words describing how the Constitution wouldn't stop the Supreme Court from doing that when we all know the Constitution wouldn't stop the current Supreme Court anyway.

b) The 14th Amendment does mention the right for citizens to vote, and says that if that right is "abridged" then the state loses seats in the House. An argument could be made that the people's right to vote has been abridged by their state government unilaterally deciding that their votes don't matter.

The Supreme Court would just throw that argument out, of course, but it could be made.

The 14th Amendment (emphasis mine) wrote:

... But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

I mean if that scenario doesn’t end in mass violence then we sorta deserve it.

Except for participation in rebellion? So everyone that marched on Jan 6 can't vote anymore right?

Re: the 14th amendment. So in the 2024 scenario above, the consequence of denying/abridging voting rights is that a bunch of states that are trending blue and just voted for Biden lose Representatives? And who picks which ones? What’s to say they don’t lose only Democratic Representatives and keep all the Republicans? This seems like further incentive to cheat, not deterrent.

gewy wrote:

Re: the 14th amendment. So in the 2024 scenario above, the consequence of denying/abridging voting rights is that a bunch of states that are trending blue and just voted for Biden lose Representatives? And who picks which ones? What’s to say they don’t lose only Democratic Representatives and keep all the Republicans? This seems like further incentive to cheat, not deterrent.

The House would be reapportioned, like after a Census, except with certain states only using a percentage of their populations instead of the whole amount. Then the states that gained or lost seats would have to re-gerrymander their congressional districts. So they can't just kick out whichever people they want.

Between the loss of influence from losing House seats, the loss of Electoral votes (you get one per House seat and one per Senate seat, so you'd lose just under half of your votes), and the fact that the legislature overrode the clear will of the people, they'd definitely be risking a lot. There would almost certainly be a lot of people very angry about the black eye that their state government just gave the entire state. Enough to make a difference? Probably not. It would still be a gamble, though.

But to be fair, I was mainly just pointing out that that massive thread's claim of "the Constitution never says that the states have to listen to the voters!" isn't entirely accurate.

See, the weirdest thing in the US (to an Aussie whose constitution was drafted having the benefit of seeing the US version beforehand) is that everyone is so fixated on what it said and is not focused on what society needs to achieve.

For example, our constitution gives the federal government power over marriage. That meant until about 1974 each state and territory had to deal with the parenting and property disputes individually. This was clearly an inappropriate approach thus the States and Territories ceded their powers to the federal government and ever since we've had uniform national family laws.

Another example would be the interpretation of an express federal power over telegraphs (the height of communications technology in 1901) to make laws in relation to airwaves and the internet.

If you keep using a fossilised document it clearly won't be fit for purpose and creates inefficiency in governance. Is this not obvious? I guess vested interests use this to their advantage in the US.

fangblackbone wrote:

That is already happening. I guess it would be a bottom up thing that started with the local school boards.

School's out forever: Arizona moves "to kill public education" with new universal voucher law

Salon article, FWIW.

Last Friday, while the country reeled from the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade, Arizona made history of a different sort. Legislators in the Grand Canyon State passed a universal school voucher bill that, once signed by Gov. Doug Ducey, will become the most wide-reaching school privatization plan in the country.

In his January State of the State address, Ducey called on Arizona lawmakers to send him bills that would "expand school choice any way we can," and the Republican-dominated legislature obliged, delivering last Friday's bill, which will open a preexisting program for Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) up to the entire state. In practice, the law will now give parents who opt out of public schools a debit card for roughly $7,000 per child that can be used to pay for private school tuition, but also for much more: for religious schools, homeschool expenses, tutoring, online classes, education supplies and fees associated with "microschools," in which small groups of parents pool resources to hire teachers.

Ducey said the law had "set the gold standard in educational freedom" in the country, and right-wing politicians and education activists quickly agreed. Corey DeAngelis, the research director of Betsy DeVos' school privatization lobby group American Federation for Children, declared on Twitter that Arizona "just took first place" when it comes to school choice. Anti-critical race theory activist Christopher Rufo — the Manhattan Institute fellow who this spring called for fostering "universal public school distrust" in order to build support for "universal school choice" — tweeted, "Every red state in the country should follow [Ducey's] lead," since the law "gives every family a right to exit any public school that fails to educate their children or reflect their values."

From the American Enterprise Institute, education researcher Max Eden happily concluded that "Arizona now funds students, not systems," deploying a formulation that has become common among conservative education activists, as when last week the Moms for Liberty network chastised Arizona public school advocates who opposed the bill as "system advocates" rather than "education advocates." From Rhode Island, anti-CRT activist Nicole Solas, a fellow with the right-wing Independent Women's Forum, tweeted, "You know what happens when you abuse people? People leave you. Bye, public school."

And back in Arizona, the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank founded in honor of former senator and right-wing icon Barry Goldwater, celebrated the law it had done much to create as a "major victory for families wary of a one-size-fits-all approach to education," plus a cost-saving measure to boot, since the total funding parents would receive through ESA vouchers is $4,000 less than Arizona's already paltry per-pupil funding for public schools.

By contrast, Democratic politicians and public education advocates described the law as the potential "nail in the coffin" for public schools in Arizona, as Beth Lewis, director of Save Our Schools Arizona (SOS Arizona) put it.

"The Republican universal voucher system is designed to kill public education," tweeted former Arizona House Rep. Diego Rodriguez. "OUR nation's greatness is built on free Public schools. The GOP goal is to recreate segregation, expand the opportunity gap, and destroy the foundation of our democracy."

"I think it's a very serious mistake and the result will be that, within a decade, Arizona will have a very, very poorly educated adult population," added Carol Corbett Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education. "Maybe that's the game."

That's totally the game. Republicans love the poorly educated.

That made me sick to read.

Bfgp wrote:

If you keep using a fossilised document it clearly won't be fit for purpose and creates inefficiency in governance. Is this not obvious? I guess vested interests use this to their advantage in the US.

It is obvious to almost everyone. There are, however, many USAnians who feel the height of political document writing was done back in the day, and it could never be improved, and that you should totally apply things written over 200 years ago to things that were only invented in the past decade.

Veloxi wrote:

That's totally the game. Republicans love the poorly educated.

I don't think it's that.

For me, personally, a lot of this stuff makes the most sense if viewed as projection.

So, if you're them, and you believe that public schools from kindergarten all the way through college are indoctrination centers for liberal ideology, the way to fight it would be to do the exact same thing, but for conservatism. Just call it "parental choice."