We can vote for genocide, or genocide that sells pride flags once a year. As a man who has sucked my fair share of dicks, you make a compelling argument, and hey, it’s been almost a decade since democrats allowed us to get married, so we kinda owe them this one!
Hey, just so we’re clear, Biden is trying to make sure that The Gays™️ have the right to exist, has been expanding title IX protections, and is doing his best to make sure that LGBTQ+ people are protected under the law, and which Republican states are suing over to prevent source. I’m sure you think that the fight is over for you, you’ve got your basic bare minimum rights, and that’s good enough. But I’m old enough to remember when California (!!!) had a vote and overturned marriage equality (the effort to overturn marriage equality was largely funded by the Mormon church, BTW), which is what led to Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015, which, yes, was under Obama). But the thing you gotta remember here is that Obergefell was a 5-4 decision, with Kennedy, Ginsburd, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in the majority, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissenting. The current court, courtesy of Trump, would have Roberts, Coney-Barrett, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Goresuch against marriage equality, and only Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan in favor.
So, yeah, cool story bro. Tell your trans friends that you didn’t care enough about them to make the minimum effort.
Irrelevant, since that was decided by the Supreme Court, not Obama.
Yes, the SC sucks now, but it’s going to suck regardless of who gets elected. That’s kinda the point of the SC. It’s independent of the executive branch.
The president has the power to appoint judges. So yeah, it’s very much the fault of Trump that Roe was overturned. For LGBTQ+ rights to remain, we–the entire US–need a president that will appoint judges that are willing to uphold that basic legal principle. The president can do some things through executive action, but he does need a congress and court system on his side to make lasting changes.
The president has the power to appoint judges. So yeah, it’s very much the fault of Trump that Roe was overturned.
Where did I say that it wasn’t Trump’s fault? Yes, Trump appointed the judges, and that might be a good reason not to vote for him, but that isn’t the argument you were making.
The Democrats didn’t codify Roe into law for decades, even when they had control of all three branches of government.
Biden claims that he wants to, but unless Dems hold the senate and take the house, there’s no way in hell that’s happening. Even if they did, they’re have to end the filibuster, which I think is probably not a good idea. And I don’t think that a law would hold up to SCOTUS as it is now, because ‘muh state’s rights’. And honestly, even if it had been federal law for decades, this SCOTUS still would have thrown it out, because Trump packed the court with three batshit crazy conservatives.
Yes it is critical that we allow a senate rule that was invented to keep slavery from being outlawed around. There is no possible way that we could make specific laws that were immune to the filibuster, or simply reinstate the filibuster after passing laws codifying existing SCOTUS rulings. The most important aspect of government is that good things can never override the status quo, only bad things get to do that.
The point of the filibuster is that you don’t want the majority to trample the rights of the minority. Imagine what happens when the Senate has a simple majority of Republicans again. And it’s pretty likely, since Manchin is retiring (WV is very, very solidly red; there’s functionally zero chance that Dems will keep that seat), and both Ossof and Warnock will have a serious uphill fight to retain their seats in the coming years; the only reason Warnock won the last time is because Republicans were convinced the election was rigged, and didn’t show up. (So, I guess that’s one thing Trump did right…?)
Republicans took the House, barely, in '22. If Trump wins this year, then the odds are pretty good that Republicans will retain the House and take the Senate. A filibuster is a check on that, unless the senate majority throws it out, and so far Republicans haven’t been willing to completely gut it. So far. If Dems choose to do that–and they don’t have the votes to do so–they’d be shooting themselves in the foot for when they lose the Senate again. If anything, Dems should be strengthening the filibuster, albeit going back to the old rules where you actually had to stand up and talk the whole time.
The Dems have never used the filibuster to block Republican legislative initiatives. It’s only been used to stop things like the Civil Rights act, and ensure that massive government handouts are given to well-connected contractors.
You need to intenalize the purpose of the filibuster, it’s not to stop “the majority to trample the rights of the minority,” or whatever idealic thing you’ve fixated on.
Here is something to chew on:
The two most substantial legislative actions of the past 12 years — President Obama’s Affordable Care Act and President Trump’s tax cuts — were achieved only because one party used an exception to the filibuster rules.
We can vote for genocide, or genocide that sells pride flags once a year. As a man who has sucked my fair share of dicks, you make a compelling argument, and hey, it’s been almost a decade since democrats allowed us to get married, so we kinda owe them this one!
Thanks, Ally™️!
Hey, just so we’re clear, Biden is trying to make sure that The Gays™️ have the right to exist, has been expanding title IX protections, and is doing his best to make sure that LGBTQ+ people are protected under the law, and which Republican states are suing over to prevent source. I’m sure you think that the fight is over for you, you’ve got your basic bare minimum rights, and that’s good enough. But I’m old enough to remember when California (!!!) had a vote and overturned marriage equality (the effort to overturn marriage equality was largely funded by the Mormon church, BTW), which is what led to Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015, which, yes, was under Obama). But the thing you gotta remember here is that Obergefell was a 5-4 decision, with Kennedy, Ginsburd, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in the majority, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissenting. The current court, courtesy of Trump, would have Roberts, Coney-Barrett, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Goresuch against marriage equality, and only Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan in favor.
So, yeah, cool story bro. Tell your trans friends that you didn’t care enough about them to make the minimum effort.
Irrelevant, since that was decided by the Supreme Court, not Obama.
Yes, the SC sucks now, but it’s going to suck regardless of who gets elected. That’s kinda the point of the SC. It’s independent of the executive branch.
The president has the power to appoint judges. So yeah, it’s very much the fault of Trump that Roe was overturned. For LGBTQ+ rights to remain, we–the entire US–need a president that will appoint judges that are willing to uphold that basic legal principle. The president can do some things through executive action, but he does need a congress and court system on his side to make lasting changes.
Where did I say that it wasn’t Trump’s fault? Yes, Trump appointed the judges, and that might be a good reason not to vote for him, but that isn’t the argument you were making.
The Democrats didn’t codify Roe into law for decades, even when they had control of all three branches of government.
What are they doing to fix this? Honest question.
Biden claims that he wants to, but unless Dems hold the senate and take the house, there’s no way in hell that’s happening. Even if they did, they’re have to end the filibuster, which I think is probably not a good idea. And I don’t think that a law would hold up to SCOTUS as it is now, because ‘muh state’s rights’. And honestly, even if it had been federal law for decades, this SCOTUS still would have thrown it out, because Trump packed the court with three batshit crazy conservatives.
Yes it is critical that we allow a senate rule that was invented to keep slavery from being outlawed around. There is no possible way that we could make specific laws that were immune to the filibuster, or simply reinstate the filibuster after passing laws codifying existing SCOTUS rulings. The most important aspect of government is that good things can never override the status quo, only bad things get to do that.
The point of the filibuster is that you don’t want the majority to trample the rights of the minority. Imagine what happens when the Senate has a simple majority of Republicans again. And it’s pretty likely, since Manchin is retiring (WV is very, very solidly red; there’s functionally zero chance that Dems will keep that seat), and both Ossof and Warnock will have a serious uphill fight to retain their seats in the coming years; the only reason Warnock won the last time is because Republicans were convinced the election was rigged, and didn’t show up. (So, I guess that’s one thing Trump did right…?)
Republicans took the House, barely, in '22. If Trump wins this year, then the odds are pretty good that Republicans will retain the House and take the Senate. A filibuster is a check on that, unless the senate majority throws it out, and so far Republicans haven’t been willing to completely gut it. So far. If Dems choose to do that–and they don’t have the votes to do so–they’d be shooting themselves in the foot for when they lose the Senate again. If anything, Dems should be strengthening the filibuster, albeit going back to the old rules where you actually had to stand up and talk the whole time.
The Dems have never used the filibuster to block Republican legislative initiatives. It’s only been used to stop things like the Civil Rights act, and ensure that massive government handouts are given to well-connected contractors.
You need to intenalize the purpose of the filibuster, it’s not to stop “the majority to trample the rights of the minority,” or whatever idealic thing you’ve fixated on.
Here is something to chew on:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/05/politics/filibuster-senate-explained/