Debate & this morning

[BootmanLA]

I know many people who watched the debate last night may have concerns that the President isn't as sharp (or wasn't last night, at least) as we'd hope. People can argue whether he was overprepared and tired, or not, but two things stood out to me about last night, and a separate one this morning.

First, there's still no comparison between the ranting lies of the GOP candidate and the perhaps unsteady performance by the Democrat. Aside from the fact that the latter will be surrounded by competent people giving him sound advice and guidance, compared with the idiocy and vindictiveness that would permeate a second Trump White House, one man was clearly a better person than the other, and that's really never been in doubt.

Second, we're still months from the election, and I don't see any way Trump's mental state is going to improve; we're in for months of batteries on electric boats electrocuting people trying to escape shark attacks and not being able to get water to the washing machines we use for dishes, and how anyone could, in good conscience, put that kind of babbling idiot in charge of licking stamps, much less the nuclear codes, is beyond me.

And now for today.

Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of this week, the Supreme Court announced assorted opinions, and given that Trump appointed one-third of the justices currently serving, it's well worth laying at his feet some of the utter destruction they're levying. Here's a quick run-down of some of the most dreadful.

SEC v. Jarkesy. The Court gutted the ability of the SEC to levy civil penalties for securities fraud - ruling that you have to have a jury trial. It's already very difficult to schedule federal jury trials even under ordinary circumstances (which is part of why so many cases get pleaded down); now, the guys on Wall Street who commit fraud will go scot-free except when there are sufficient resources to get a jury trial. Moreover, this is the kind of decision that tends to "spread" to other agencies, so look for a massive gutting of the government's ability to fine wrongdoers across a huge swath of agencies.

Ohio v. EPA. The Court blocked enforcement of EPA rules that sought to step in when state rules did not adequately protect neighboring states' environments under existing federal law. Basically, states with impermissibly lax environmental laws can keep polluting even if it affects other states, until a final determination by the courts - the EPA can't intervene in the meantime to limit the problem.

Snyder v. US. The Court held that federal bribery law for state and local officials only applies if the government can prove that the bribed person agreed to take an action before taking the bribe. So shaking down someone for a bribe after the fact, once you took action to benefit them, is perfectly kosher as far as the federal bribery law is concerned. Even when, as in this case, the local official went to the company he "helped" and openly declared he needed money.

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson. The Court held that a local government can completely ban outdoor sleeping/camping within its limits, even when no homeless shelter exists, thus allowing them to simply either imprison or export its homeless population.

Fischer v. United States. The most severe cases arising out of the January 6 insurrection involved charges where the defendants were convicted of attempting to interfere with an official proceeding. Despite the fact that the intent was clear - they wanted to force a change in the counting of electoral votes - the Court held that a conviction therein had to involve either destruction or falsification of actual records (like shredding documents or forging signatures).

And now the big one -

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This is what you'll see called the "Chevron" case (although Chevron isn't a party to this case; it's a reference to a case from decades ago). Back in the Reagan administration, Chevron sued the feds over a regulation that interpreted a statute Congress had passed, a statute that was ambiguous on certain points. The Court in Chevron said that when federal law was ambiguous, courts should defer to the interpretation of the federal agencies as long as those interpretations were reasonable (because the agencies have experts, which the courts are not). At the time, conservatives LOVED Chevron, because the GOP had the presidency and they thought they'd have it forever (remember the boasts of a "permanent Republican majority"?). And in the early 1980's, the federal courts still had lots of moderate Nixon appointees and a lot of Carter ones, so the GOP didn't trust the "liberal" federal courts to rule for them. Better to cut them out of it and let our agencies decide things!

But then reality intervened, and Bush I only managed one term (followed by two terms of Clinton). Skipping past Bush II for the moment (he won re-election primarily because we were at war), we then had two terms of Obama (followed by one term of Trump). In other words, the GOP is having trouble maintaining control of the executive branch. And since most of the officials in the executive branch agencies are career civil servants, not political appointees (for now), it turned out that experts didn't always agree with what the right wing/big business wanted.

So targeting Chevron became the big cause for conservatives. What Roe was to the pro-forced-birth crowd, Chevron has become for big business. And today, with Loper Bright, Chevron has been expressly overturned - federal courts now can decide for themselves what the "right" interpretation of an ambiguous federal law is. Which, in practice, means that every time big business doesn't like a decision of a Democratic administration agency, they'll run to a hand-picked Trump-appointed judge, usually in Texas, and get an injunction against enforcing that regulation. Then he'll rule the entire set of regulations is unconstitutional, the right-wing Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which oversees Texas) will uphold him, and only the most egregious cases will make it to the Supreme Court for consideration, and even then it may still uphold the decision.

Make no mistake: this is HUGE. As in HUGE. The ability of the feds to require insurers to cover PrEP? That's a regulation, interpreting federal law, that's being challenged. Now the agency's interpretation gets no more weight than any one else's. Hundreds of decisions over the years have been based on this Chevron deference - and in one push, all of that legal jurisprudence is gone.

And we're still waiting on a few more decisions on Monday. I shudder to think what additional damage they could do (especially considering one of those cases is whether Trump has immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while he was president (even if he wasn't acting AS president when he committed them). 

[BootmanLA]

My point is: Unless I'm mistaken, every one of these decisions had Trump's three appointees in the majority, and most were either 5-4 or 6-3. If the asshole Democrats who whined that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for the email lady because they just didn't like her enough had actually VOTED for her, especially in the three critical states (PA, WI, MI), those appointments would have been hers, not Trump's. (Or at the very least, two of them would have been - the holdover vacancy for Scalia's seat and the one opened up by Ginsburg's death). 

Roe wouldn't be overturned, nor would any of these other horrible decisions have been made. We wouldn't be waiting for the inevitable case that guts most of the protection that Obergefell gave to same-sex marriage. And so on.

So for god's sake, people: LEARN THE LESSON. I don't care how much you think Biden's too old, VOTE FOR HIM. I don't care if you think he's too soft on Israel; VOTE FOR HIM. Even re-electing him won't solve all these problems, but if we DON'T re-elect him, the oldest conservatives are going to retire and get replaced by Trump-appointed young judges who'll be even more thoroughly vetted to go along with whatever the administration wants. And we'll be screwed for another 30 years.

[topblkmale]

 

Aside from cutting microphones, CNN did a disservice and should have provided subtitles for Biden.

Otherwise, Biden's debate performance was exceptional. 

Biden 2024

 

[hntnhole]

 

1.  After the misery of the post-debate carrying on last night, I had a hunch, so I waited to watch the rally in Carolina to see if I was right or wrong.  The President's speech just wrapped up moments ago, and , while it's only my own analysis of the debacle of last night, there's one interesting detail I'd like to point out:

One of the rules agreed upon by both parties to the debate last night was that no prepared written notes would be allowed.  Each candidate was provided several sheets of paper and a pen, so notes during the debate could be made, by either the President or the other guy.  

I've noticed during speeches that the President relies, perhaps a bit too heavily, on the teleprompters.  During speeches, he clearly looks at the teleprompters constantly.  It's only during applause, chants from the crowd, that he looks away and makes the requisite 'eye-contact' with the crowd.  Thus, I surmise that without the teleprompters, and in combination with the flood of lies, merde from the King of Bullshitters, our President lost his way. He was deprived of his 'support system', the teleprompters.  I'm not suggesting that the other guy prevented the use of notes/teleprompters - he's far too dull to figure that out, but one of his acolytes may have. 

Now.  I suppose one could argue that a President should be able to speak confidently without any visual, pre-recorded prompts like a prepared speech.  That fact is, he's old, set in his habits when publicly speaking, and should have either insisted (successfully) on including the teleprompters at the debate, or declined the invitation.  He's in his 80's now, and some synapses just don't work as well as they did 40 years ago.  That possibility however, in no way indicates impairment of his mental acuity.  It merely makes obvious a bad habit, likely developed over many years, of depending on a certain technology - a support system during public appearances.  I can and have forgiven him of that, since all of us have developed the same bad habit of depending on technological advances  more, perhaps, than we ideally should.  That issue, however is hardly enough to disqualify him from the Presidency.  

2.  Let's imagine the US Government as a gigantic corporation.  The President is the CEO, with a huge office (for this purpose, we'll call it the White House), staffed by many employees that have various duties.  Let's imagine that this Corporation produces some product, which has come into use world wide.  Using that analogy, the CEO of some large, multi-national corporation has, of course, many managers of various divisions within said Corporation - from procurement of materials, to labor relations, to Sales of said item, to Shipping, to servicing of the product to customer relations, on and on and on.  Each of these 'divisions' has it's own large staff of employees that actually do the work.  The US Government is similarly structured, with "divisions" for every kind of activity any Government anywhere engages in.  

The CEO relies on the information his employees bring him, to inform his "macro" decisions, and that corporate structure generally works fairly well.  However, when one Manager fails to foresee, or investigate some potential problem with an upcoming meeting/conference, the entire operation may become threatened.  In this specific case, someone failed to realize how crucial some particular component was to the success of the Company, with a terrible result.  

That may be a cumbersome analogy, and thanks to those who bothered to read it.  After hearing the President's speech this afternoon in Carolina, watching it carefully, I am hopeful that this mistake - omitting the "crucial component" mentioned in the previous paragraph - led to a disastrous result.  One can pick at nits - maybe the President shouldn't have become so reliant on teleprompters in the first place, maybe this, maybe that, ad infinitum, but this is a rather reasonable explanation for last night's horror.    

The inescapable fact however, is with teleprompters, Joe Biden is his very able, very confident, very clearly in-command self.  Without them, he's crippled.  That fact has not one whit to do with the goals he sets out for his "employees" (in the Corporation example) to follow through on, and for which the Nation has benefitted enormously since his Presidency began. 

[BlueSaphir]

Never voting for a republican. 🗑️ they go! 

[hntnhole]

from your .... well, fingertips .... to Whatever's Ear !!!!

[PozBearWI]

It is a boolean choice; we either go for the skilled snake oil salesman and buy his snake oil, and all that implies, or we don't.  Are we hiring an entertainer or a president?  Joe with notes (teleprompter; staff fed teleprompter, or whatever) has the skill and moxie to explain his several contributions to the benefit of our imperfect economy.  It is clearly a hell of a lot better than it was, even though many prices have gone up.  Those who own property are damned happy to see values increasing as they've been pretty stagnant, at least here in middle USA for a couple of decades.  Now, it is concerning that corporations are buying up property which used to be the market for ordinary citizens; but Trump isn't going to solve that except by eminent domain.  

We've a pretty great system in place that was designed to do a lot for the many rather than massive lots for the few.  

[viking8x6]

1 hour ago, PozBearWI said:

We've a pretty great system in place that was designed to do a lot for the many rather than massive lots for the few. 

I will quibble with that. The American governmental system was originally designed to further the interests of the propertied class. It has since evolved to do a lot for the proletariat. That said, the propertied class still pretty much has the reins firmly in its hands. And that's true regardless of which political party happens to be in power.

[PozBearWI]

Yup exactly @viking8x6  And since then per it's designed it has become more inclusive.  Not without its fits and starts but on balance better.  Rather than tear it down my hope is we'll make it better.  It's been awhile since we've made constitutional amendments but the plumbing is there to allow it.

[BootmanLA]

10 minutes ago, PozBearWI said:

Yup exactly @viking8x6  And since then per it's designed it has become more inclusive.  Not without its fits and starts but on balance better.  Rather than tear it down my hope is we'll make it better.  It's been awhile since we've made constitutional amendments but the plumbing is there to allow it.

My belief is that we will never see another amendment to our constitution; either at some point, the country will collapse in on itself, and whatever takes its place will write a much longer (and hopefully better and clearer) constitution, or we will hobble on until such time as the whole idea of originalism is so discredited that the Court abandons it as a major juridical underpinning.

Right now, I don't think you could get 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree that the sun rises in the east, and I see no path forward that would produce those necessary majorities.

[PozBearWI]

@BootmanLA I would argue if there were evidence to support my argument.  But I hope the whole thing doesn't fall apart of things like property rights will be up for debate again.

[tallslenderguy]

This is encouraging:

"There was even a bit of good news emerging from the debacle. A senior Biden campaign official said the operation raised $14 million on debate day and the morning after “in a sign of strength of our grassroots support.”

The post-debate hour proved to be “the single best hour of fundraising” since the campaign’s launch more than a year ago, the official said."

[think before following links] https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-allies-rush-reassure-anxious-010007867.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&segment_id=DY_VTO&ncid=crm_19908-1202929-20240629-0&bt_user_id=voQPmy27IilYxvj2u%2BW3UK7BE5iUdjn9%2B0WBU4%2FDniOlm9416vXiVFJOmXS%2F08jT&bt_ts=1719672282440

i appreciate both @BootmanLA and @hntnhole had to say, i'd echo them both. We currently only have one choice for president as far as i'm concerned. At the very worst, the American people have something to vote against.  Summed up, we are voting for an administration, not just one person. One of the bigger problems with trump is he is such a control freak, he wants to be king, not just the boss of an organization. 

[hntnhole]

23 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

It is a boolean choice;

No wonder I had no idea what "boolean" means;  it has to do with algebra !!!  

The only way I passed high school algebra is, my mother (Librarian) was friends with my algebra teacher.  Miss Penstone (how's that for a Dickensian name?), a single, never married old woman, would ask my mother if I were studying (homework) at all - and I was - which my mother reported,  Literally hours virtually every school night.  It was a total nightmare for me.  Even my dad would sit with me trying to help.😬  Geometry wasn't all that bad, but algebra was simply a bridge too far. 

We had a "track" system in high school, meaning one would be "put into" one of several "tracks" for career purposes.  I was put in a Humanities track, thus college-bound.  Skinny old Penstone*  knew that, and told my mom that occasionally she'd run across students with minds that simply could not comprehend, make sense of algebra.  So, she passed me with a D, and I got to go to undergrad.  

Not once have I ever regretted not knowing shit about algebra.  I can pay the bills, balance the checkbook, and I don't give a rats ass about the rest of it.  

*skinny barely describes it; she could easily walk through a harp ... 

[onlyraw]

Overheard at work yesterday two of my coworkers about what they could order for a business lunch 

coworker 1 “really…. I didn’t know we could do that”

coworker 2 “of course you can. It’s a free country…… at least until November”

[onlyraw]

I too was horrified by the debate… normally watch them all … but this one was too painful… I kept switching channels (hard as almost everyone was carrying the debate) and then would switch back every 10 or 15 minutes hoping that Biden had woken up

the problem is that at this point I think it would be an ugly blood bath to replace Biden… at this point I don’t see anyone who could keep the Squad and the moderates together 

We need to remember- like @tallslenderguymentioned - we are voting not just for the candidate - but for the administration 

and Trump and his gang scare the bejesus out of me

so let’s all pray to what ever power we believe in - and give what we can afford to the Democratic Party

AND… be sure and vote in November