Clarence Thomas speaks
-
This is rich:
As a society, "we are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like," Thomas said
Has he spoken recently, say in the last 18 months, to the missus?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-
This is rich:
As a society, "we are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like," Thomas said
Has he spoken recently, say in the last 18 months, to the missus?
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is rich:
As a society, "we are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like," Thomas said
Has he spoken recently, say in the last 18 months, to the missus?
Do you assume he agreed with his wife's reaction to Trump's loss? Or do you think he should take responsibility for his wife's opinions regardless?
-
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
If that is so, couldn't the Biden administration just re-establish the "Roe" rules via a law?
-
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
If that is so, couldn't the Biden administration just re-establish the "Roe" rules via a law?
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
If that is so, couldn't the Biden administration just re-establish the "Roe" rules via a law?
That is the goal of many of the Democratic members of congress. It won't get past the Senate, however, particularly if 1) Manchin (a pro-life Democrat) opposes it and 2) it is subject to a filibuster.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
If that is so, couldn't the Biden administration just re-establish the "Roe" rules via a law?
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
If that is so, couldn't the Biden administration just re-establish the "Roe" rules via a law?
Sure if they had the votes. Likewise a GOP government could outlaw it throughout the land if they had the votes.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-
Wouldn't it fall under the 10th Amendment and still be a state matter?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
If that is so, couldn't the Biden administration just re-establish the "Roe" rules via a law?
Sure if they had the votes. Likewise a GOP government could outlaw it throughout the land if they had the votes.
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
If that is so, couldn't the Biden administration just re-establish the "Roe" rules via a law?
Sure if they had the votes. Likewise a GOP government could outlaw it throughout the land if they had the votes.
They'd need a majority of votes in both chambers of the congress? Or something more?
Don't the democrats have the majority in both chambers? Why is this so difficult, then? Or would they need some kind of supermajority?
-
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
If that is so, couldn't the Biden administration just re-establish the "Roe" rules via a law?
Sure if they had the votes. Likewise a GOP government could outlaw it throughout the land if they had the votes.
They'd need a majority of votes in both chambers of the congress? Or something more?
Don't the democrats have the majority in both chambers? Why is this so difficult, then? Or would they need some kind of supermajority?
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Don't the democrats have the majority in both chambers?
Yes, but...
Why is this so difficult, then? Or would they need some kind of supermajority?
A "filibuster" can be used to prevent a bill from coming to the floor of the Senate or even a vote.
It takes a supermajority, 60 votes to overcome that process. It's a Senate rule that has no basis in law or the constitution, simply a rule of how business is done. It became a rule in 1806, but not used until 1837.
Several other countries have a similar rule.
-
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Don't the democrats have the majority in both chambers?
Yes, but...
Why is this so difficult, then? Or would they need some kind of supermajority?
A "filibuster" can be used to prevent a bill from coming to the floor of the Senate or even a vote.
It takes a supermajority, 60 votes to overcome that process. It's a Senate rule that has no basis in law or the constitution, simply a rule of how business is done. It became a rule in 1806, but not used until 1837.
Several other countries have a similar rule.
@George-K said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Why is this so difficult, then? Or would they need some kind of supermajority?
A "filibuster" can be used to prevent a bill from coming to the floor of the Senate or even a vote.
It takes a supermajority, 60 votes to overcome that process. It's a Senate rule that has no basis in law or the constitution, simply a rule of how business is done. It became a rule in 1806, but not used until 1837.
Is that always the case - that is, basically no law can be passed without having 60 votes?
If I were the opposition, I'd use the filibuster all the time if it is so easy.
Or are there any disadvantages to using that instrument?
-
@George-K said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Why is this so difficult, then? Or would they need some kind of supermajority?
A "filibuster" can be used to prevent a bill from coming to the floor of the Senate or even a vote.
It takes a supermajority, 60 votes to overcome that process. It's a Senate rule that has no basis in law or the constitution, simply a rule of how business is done. It became a rule in 1806, but not used until 1837.
Is that always the case - that is, basically no law can be passed without having 60 votes?
If I were the opposition, I'd use the filibuster all the time if it is so easy.
Or are there any disadvantages to using that instrument?
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Is that always the case - that is, basically no law can be passed without having 60 votes?
Not really. It's more of a political tool. Most laws are passed with fewer than 60 votes, I believe. But, when the minority digs in its heels, it can stop something which is considered important.
Or are there any disadvantages to using that instrument?
The disadvantage is that when one side does it frequently, the other one will as well.
About 10 years ago, the filibuster for judicial appointments was removed by the then-Democrat majority via a change in the rule. When the GOP regained control, the elimination of the filibuster enabled the GOP to nominate and appoint many judges, including those to the Supreme Court.
-
If I understand correctly, the "60 votes required to end filibuster" rule can be removed with having just 51 votes.
Given that this is a highly controversial topic, couldn't the Democrats first vote to abandon the filibuster rule, and then pass the law they want?
-
If I understand correctly, the "60 votes required to end filibuster" rule can be removed with having just 51 votes.
Given that this is a highly controversial topic, couldn't the Democrats first vote to abandon the filibuster rule, and then pass the law they want?
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
If I understand correctly, the "60 votes required to end filibuster" rule can be removed with having just 51 votes.
Given that this is a highly controversial topic, couldn't the Democrats first vote to abandon the filibuster rule, and then pass the law they want?
Yes, which is exactly what happened with the abolition of the filibuster against judicial nominees. However, that came to bite them in the ass when the GOP took control. I don't think it's as controversial as all that. Several Democratic senators (Manchin and Sinema) have expressed no desire to change the rule because, well, "sauce, goose, gander."
