They’ll probably introduce it, then refer it to a committee.trusted to sit on it until the session times out. (I don’t think they can fire it back to the house until the full senate passes a revised version.)
2 Likes
Vote on it? They won’t vote on it. Mitch "I won’t even hold hearings on your SCOTUS nominee, never mind vote on him" McConnel won’t even allow it to come to the floor. Just watch.
3 Likes
I used to think that bills with no chance of passing were legitimate. They were a way for the party to say “this is what we’d do… if we could”.
But, I’ve changed my mind about it. The thing about writing legislation that will never happen is you can put whatever you want in it without worrying about the practical ramifications. The GOP House passed tons of bills repealing Obamacare, but when it came down to it they couldn’t really pass those bills as they were because they lacked a reasonable replacement. So, all these “never pass” bills do is tell you what legislators would do if their actions had no consequences.
I’ll let the Democrats have their grand symbolic gesture. But, I really hope they get down to real governing. That means sitting down with the GOP Senate leadership and the President and figuring out where there are compromises and where we can get things done.
4 Likes
So the Republicans can show all the legislation they’ve passed? And Trump can have some great photo ops of his signing those bills into law? Fuck that noise. I’d rather they obstruct all they can.
6 Likes
What the HELL makes you think that the GOP is willing to compromise on anthing? You’ve obviously not been paying attention.
10 Likes
Relatively simple initial response: I’m voting against it because it doesn’t do enough! That’s the same message the realtors used to beat back Prop 10 here in California (along with about $70 million in advertising). So the Dems should be prepared to counter that with a single sentence… And a deep pocket for lobbying and nationwide advertising. Because you KNOW tbe Kochs won’t stand for legislation that limits how cheaply they can buy legislation or politicians or entire political parties…
1 Like
Given the rash of race-based gerrymandering and voter suppression, it would absolutely be covered by the 15th Amendment.
3 Likes
oh, related to this topic, reminder that today (13th) is last day to watch the documentary “Rigged” (not sure why last day?)
1 Like
There’s a big difference between repealing something without replacement and new legislation that does something. Even McConnell will have to explain to his constituents why he’s obstructing the bill, which opens him up to local hit pieces on what private interests pull his strings. That kind of stuff matters in Kentucky. While Kentuckians are socially conservative, they’ve also shown they don’t like big money politics, especially from outside of the state. There’s a contrarian streak even within the GOP there. It’s the issue he’s taken the most heat for other than Kentuckian support for Obamacare.
3 Likes
Why do we get one day to vote? Why not let create a long election weekend starting on Friday and finish on Monday.
I voted a week before hand doing absentee balloting. No line, no fuss. Dropped ballot off in a box at the local library.
I hate how elections in the media are portrayed like horse races or boxing matches.
1 Like
Yeah and you’re going to need to get the supreme Court to endorse that. And I already addressed this in another comment above.
This won’t pass the Senate, and if does it won’t pass Trump, and of does it won’t make it passed the inevitable challenge.
But it could put these specific issues into the fore front of the political debate for the foreseeable future. If the DNC follows through on the GOP inevitably killing it. Instead of letting it hang there and hoping some one notices.
1 Like
I’m a little rusty on my Schoolhouse Rock, but I do recall that “I’m Just A Bill” made zero mentions of the Supreme Court.
That was covered in the article. I disagree that it won’t pass challenge or will even face a serious SCOTUS challenge. Every challenge to racial gerrymandering and voter suppression has been thoroughly crushed at the SCOTUS and even the current makeup won’t change that (It was 5-3 against racial gerrymandering prior to Kavanaughty).
Which is the whole point.
2 Likes
Ah, but the GOP only wants white popcorn, and the Democrats want a selection of white popcorn, caramel popcorn, and chocholate popcorn, with some matcha popcorn thrown in.
3 Likes
Looks to me like we’re in violent agreement. The House is in a wonderful position to attach extremely popular poison pills to must-pass legislation that, if not passed, will be readily blamed on the Senate and President.
Hardball – with hand grenades.
4 Likes
Yeah that was my whole point clearly outlined in a comment before you decided to argue with me for agreeing with you? I think?
As to the SC.
A citizen challenging a state policy on civil rights grounds. Is a very different case than a potential case where a state challenges a federal law on states rights/federalism grounds.
The very same supreme Court that had been pushing back on racial gerrymanders also struck down the two parts of the voting rights act this law is trying to reinstitute.
In part on a state’s rights, federal/state divide arguement. Allowing the very spike in gerrymandering and voter suppression this law is addressing.
Meanwhile the courts at this point have only barely begun to push back on partisan gerrymanders, the preferred fiction the GOP is running with. Which are as of now pretty much totally legal.
If you don’t think our new Supreme Court is going to respond a little differently. Given at least one judge was picked specifically to carry out the GOP’s Constitutional hit list (which includes both the rest of the Voting Rights act and the Civil Rights Act).
Then you haven’t been paying attention. The GOP has been pushing judicial appointments as the only thing for exactly this reason. And they have a hard on for states rights arguements.
And to the point that we both agreed was the point before we even addressed each other. This law appears to be constructed specifically to invite such a challenge, just in case.
Because that’s the point.
If they follow up on it. The DNC has had a habit for a while of introducing exactly this kind of doomed but great for PR law. And then letting it all hang there like a wet fart after the spin cycle and vote happens. Never to be addressed again, until the next time they decide to do it.
They usually don’t do it with things this important, and timely, though. And they usually don’t pack this many specific policies in need of actual focus. So that might indicate they’re finally going to push this stuff as a major part of the platform.
1 Like
Which is why in NC the latest anti-gerrymandering lawsuit has been filed in state court, claiming a violation of the state constitution, so the NC state supreme court will be the final arbiter. After the last election, through a rare GOP misstep, that court is 5:2 Democrats.
2 Likes
Yep. That’s proper politics, of course. It’s what proper politicians do.
On the other hand, you can’t compromise with trollies and nazis. Increasingly it seems like there are no proper politicians on the GOP side any more. Mainly just ‘bought and paid for’ corporate shills, American Taliban, white supremacists, professional obstructionists (‘my way or no way’), and assorted delusional half-wits out for their own interests and having no interest in the people they govern/represent.
1 Like
I dunno if it’s a rare GOP misstep. Those judges are elected. Outside of Gerrymandered structures. And the fact that 5 Democrats, the most recent one being a voting rights attorney, tells you something. More like series of missteps. That’s all pretty clearly a reaction from the public to the GOP’s absurd anti democratic approach to the state.
The pathway on most of these things runs through states at this point. Even the ones with straight fucked elections have much stronger or clearer protections in their state Constitutions than the US Constitution has. And governorships or legislative control, and those pick ups on attourneys general usually give direct control.
In this case it was a political misstep; with a congressional supermajority the GOP eliminated judicial primaries so the race would have multiple candidates, and the assumption had been that they would run a single GOP candidate and the democratic votes would split, but the opposite happened.
1 Like
