Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ChrisWeigant

(947 posts)
Fri Sep 3, 2021, 07:58 PM Sep 2021

Friday Talking Points -- Supreme Court Shows Its True Colors

This week began with conservatives and liberals upset because the women of Afghanistan will now lose their freedoms under a tyrannical extremist government. It ended with liberals upset that the women of Texas have now lost freedoms under a tyrannical extremist government. Conservatives were notably silent, which is understandable since they were the ones instituting this unconstitutional denial of rights from the women of the Lone Star State.

Women everywhere in America used to have the right to terminate their pregnancies up to the point when the fetus was viable outside their bodies -- anywhere from about 22 to 26 weeks after they get pregnant. Now, only women outside Texas have this right, since by a Machiavellian scheme it is now functionally illegal for Texas women to get an abortion beyond six weeks of pregnancy -- a time when most women aren't even aware they are pregnant. Laws like this (although decidedly less Draconian and Machiavellian) have passed state legislatures before, but they have always been struck down by the federal courts. This time, however, the Supreme Court refused to issue an emergency stay which would have barred the law from taking effect. So until further legal rulings happen, if you are a woman in Texas and want to exercise your constitutional rights, you will have to leave the state to do so.

Roe v. Wade isn't completely dead yet, but as we wrote earlier in the week, it is surely on life support. Now that the Supreme Court has given their imprimatur, there will be quick movement in other Republican-controlled state legislatures to pass identical laws. Within a very short period, abortion could be effectively outlawed in over 20 states. No, Roe isn't quite dead yet -- as long as you live in a blue state, that is. But the era of universally-legal abortion in America may be at an end.

Sadly, there's not a whole lot Democrats can do to change this anytime soon. With the Supreme Court packed with conservatives, it may only be a matter of time before Roe is outright overturned (they've already scheduled a Mississippi test case for October). The idea of packing the court right back -- which would require adding four liberal justices (or even just two, which would leave Chief Justice Roberts as the swing vote) -- is not going anywhere, at least until the legislative filibuster is removed. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has promised she will bring up the Women's Health Protection Act for a vote, which will formally enact abortion rights as a federal law (instead of relying on the courts to maintain it). This bill may pass the House, but it will go nowhere in the Senate. Only two Republicans might be convinced to vote for it (Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski), but there are two Democrats who would likely vote against it (Senators Bob Casey and Joe Manchin). That doesn't add up to 60 votes, so once again it would require the end of the filibuster to even have a chance (and even that chance might depend on Collins and Murkowski bucking their party, so there is no guarantee of success).

Electing more Democrats to the Texas state government is a pretty heavy lift, and it's about to get a lot heavier. First, they're about to gerrymander the entire state once again, which includes state legislative districts as well as U.S. House seats. And second, Texas also just passed a law which severely limits the ease of voting, since Republicans always get nervous when too many Democrats are able to vote with relative ease. Texas is really a case study for how Republicans want to run the entire country, really:

Texas this week showed us what a post-democracy America would look like.

Thanks to a series of actions by the Texas legislature and governor, we now see exactly what the Trumpified Republican Party wants: to take us to an America where women cannot get abortions, even in cases of rape and incest; an America where almost everybody can openly carry a gun in public, without license, without permit, without safety training and without fingerprinting; and an America where law-abiding Black and Latino citizens are disproportionately denied the right to vote.

This is where Texas and other red states are going, or have already gone. It is where the rest of America will go, unless those targeted by these new laws -- women, people of color and all small "d" democrats -- rise up.

On Wednesday, a Texas law went into effect that bans abortions later than six weeks, after the Supreme Court let pass a request to block the statute. Because 85 to 90 percent of women get abortions after six weeks, it amounts to a near-total ban. Already on the books in Texas is a "trigger" law that automatically bans all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. At least 10 other states have done likewise.

Also Wednesday, a new law went into effect in Texas, over the objections of law enforcement, allowing all Texans otherwise allowed to own guns to carry them in public, without a license and without training. Now, 20 states have blessed such "permitless carry."

And on Tuesday, the Texas legislature passed the final version of the Republican voting bill that bans drive-through and 24-hour voting, both used disproportionately by voters of color; imposes new limits on voting by mail, blocks election officials from distributing mail-ballot applications unless specifically requested; gives partisan poll watchers more leeway to influence vote counting; and places new rules and paperwork requirements that deter people from helping others to vote or to register. At least 17 states have adopted similar restrictions.

All three of these actions are deeply antidemocratic.


About the only thing Democrats can really do, at this point, is to use the issue as a political weapon. The interesting thing, since the Supreme Court ruled, is that very few Republicans are out there making noise about the decision. Normally, they'd be spiking the football in the end zone and doing a very public dance, but in this case they're keeping awfully quiet. This is because they realize that Draconian anti-abortion laws are actually very unpopular with the public, so they don't want to draw further attention to what it is they support.

Democrats, on the other hand, are livid, and they're not being quiet at all about it. Already, two Democratic governors are using the issue against Republican contenders. California's Gavin Newsom, facing a recall election, has been running ads warning that a Republican governor could try the same thing here, so supporters of abortion rights really need to vote "No" on the recall. In Virginia, the same warnings are being given in their gubernatorial election (which may have more of an impact, since Virginia is nowhere near as blue as California, meaning the partisan balance of their statehouse is a lot closer).

None of that changes things for women in Texas, however. They will continue to have their constitutional rights denied to them until and unless another federal court issues a ruling or a new stay. But even that would only be temporary, since eventually any such case is going to wind up before the Supreme Court once again, where a 5-4 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade has to now be seen as not only possible, but probable.

In other political news of Republican extremism, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy chanelled his inner mob thug this week, explicitly threatening the existence of telecommunications corporations, should he ever become speaker. This is one of the most jaw-dropping political threats we've ever even heard of, in fact (we wrote about it at length earlier this week). He did so because either he or his henchmen don't want their communications on and about January 6th made public. The House January 6th Select Committee merely asked dozens of telecoms to retain their records, and McCarthy went ballistic, tweeting out:

If these companies comply with the Democrat [sic] order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States. If companies still choose to violate federal law, a Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law.


His only real problem is that the "federal law" that the companies would (according to him) be violating does not, in fact, exist. So all it is, really, is a mobster goon's threat: "You sure got a nice telecom company here... be a shame if something happened to it...."

But he's not the only Republican out there making threats. Representative Madison Cawthorn danced around open sedition in a public forum this week:

"The things that we are wanting to fight for, it doesn't matter if our votes don't count," [Representative Madison] Cawthorn told the crowd, according to a video of the event posted by the county party on its Facebook page and circulated on Twitter by a Democratic congressional staffer. "Because, you know, if our election systems continue to be rigged and continue to be stolen, then it's going to lead to one place -- and it's bloodshed."

. . .

Cawthorn suggested that he was prepared to take up arms against his fellow Americans if necessary to combat voter fraud. There is no evidence that widespread fraud took place in the 2020 election.

"I will tell you, as much as I am willing to defend our liberty at all costs, there is nothing that I would dread doing more than having to pick up arms against a fellow American. And the way that we can have recourse against that is if we all passionately demand that we have election security in all 50 states," Cawthorn said, to applause from the crowd.


Pandering to the GOP conspiracy-theorist base can be dangerous, however. The count of anti-vaxxer conservative talk radio hosts who refused to get vaccinated, contracted COVID-19, and then died is now up to four. And still counting, most likely.

One Republican usually known for extremist and conspiratorial views was actually caught admitting the truth this week. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was recorded actually admitting that Donald Trump had lost his state in the 2020 election. He was quite specific, even:

There's nothing obviously skewed about the [Wisconsin election] results. If all the Republicans voted for Trump the way they voted for the Assembly candidates, he would have won. He didn't get 51,000 votes that other Republicans got, and that's why he lost.... The only reason Trump lost Wisconsin is that 51,000 Republican voters didn't vote for him.


Of course, Johnson faced some blowback from the hardcore MAGA-hat-wearing crowd, for admitting the truth.

There's really no clean way to segue into this one, sorry. We really never thought we would get to this point in politics, but one of the Republican candidates running in the gubernatorial recall election in California has proven us wrong. He's already made a name for himself by campaigning with a bear (for some idiotic reason), so he shot a new television ad starring the bear. And he ends with a line that has successfully been used (unsaid, but still...) to hawk toilet paper for more than a decade, now. Yes, a candidate for governor of the most populous state in the Union actually utters the words: "Does a bear [bleep] in the woods?" in a campaign ad. Strange but true.

And finally, speaking of metaphorical excrement (see, now, that segue was pretty easy, actually), we saw a headline this week that could be used as "Exhibit A" for why we are eternally grateful that Joe Biden is now president: "Trump Rants About Media Spending 'All Night' On Ida Instead Of His 'Great' Taliban Deal." No, really. He was mad the media covered a category 4 hurricane rather than heaping praise on him for surrendering to the Taliban. You just can't make this stuff up, folks.





This is a somewhat strange award this week, because while national Democrats were pretty quiet (Congress is still off on vacation), there was one welcome development at the state level.

Before we get to that, though, we do have two Honorable Mention awards to hand out. The first goes to President Joe Biden, for giving a rather forceful and heartfelt speech on the end of the American military involvement in Afghanistan. This was a welcome change, because throughout the withdrawal crisis Biden has been rather soft-spoken in manner. He was probably not getting a lot of sleep, but this week -- one day after the last military plane had left the Kabul airport -- Biden gave a good speech where he outlined his thinking on the war in general, the withdrawal, and what was going to come next. He forcefully defended his positions on all of it, which did a lot to shape the narrative in the media.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also deserves an Honorable Mention for reacting to the Supreme Court ruling on Texas by vowing to bring up a bill for a House vote which would codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. This really should have happened decades ago, but Democrats have long been leery of this issue because Republicans have been so effective at using it as a political bludgeon since the 1980s (at least). In the past, this worked well for the GOP, but the public's attitudes have shifted over time and support for abortion rights has a clear majority these days. Meaning it is a lot less risky to try to enact abortion rights as a federal law than it used to be.

Pelosi's no fool -- she knows this will be a symbolic vote. The bill is not going anywhere in the Senate. But by forcing the vote, Pelosi will be pushing the issue to the forefront of politics for the midterms. It's a gamble, which is why she deserves mention for taking the political risk.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is a collective award which goes to Democratic voters in the state of California. Now, we could be premature with this award -- we may end up with egg on our face. But we are pretty confident that's not going to happen.

California is in the midst of a recall election (ballots are being mailed in daily as we write this). Republicans actually got enough signatures to force this election, which is costing the state's taxpayers over $200 million, a little over one year from a scheduled gubernatorial election. And about a month ago, the mainstream media pundits all went collectively bonkers because a poll or two seemed to indicate that the race was a tossup. And then there was a dearth of polling for a few weeks, so the storyline took hold with a frenzy.

Now, however, more polls are out and they show that Newsom really doesn't have much to worry about. His job approval was at 58 percent in one poll, with just 39 percent disapproving. That is a very healthy margin indeed. Other polls told similar stories.

The big scare was caused by how polling operations select their "likely voters." It was only in the likely voters category that the earlier polls showed a close race. But it is almost impossible to predict who will and who will not vote in this election, because it is so unique. Election Day is in the middle of September, not the beginning of November. We've only ever had one other recall election, and it was almost 20 years ago. And the major difference most pundits have been ignoring is this will only be the second election (2020 was the first) where every registered voter will automatically get a ballot in the mail. Voting is as easy as pie. So "turnout to the polls on Election Day" is not all that big a deal anymore, since most people will have already sent their ballot in by then. All of this adds up to making it almost impossible to determine which voters will actually vote versus which will not. But that hasn't stopped the pollsters from applying their usual formulas to a very unusual election.

Now, however, some actual data is coming in, in addition to the polls. The more-recent polls showed Newsom with strong support, instead of the supposedly "close race" everyone had been worrying over. And the return rate of the mail-in ballots is actually quite high for a non-presidential election, showing that making voting easy means more people actually vote, even in a special recall election in September. Even better -- the return rate of Democratic voters has been outpacing Republican and independent voters.

Which is why we're giving the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to every California Democrat who has already voted or will be voting "No" in this costly and unnecessary recall election.

[Ethical note: OK, for the very first time ever (we think, we'd have to actually check, and we are just too lazy to do so), we have to admit that this award is a case of self-dealing. Because we are (in a tiny, tiny way) actually giving the MIDOTW award to ourselves. But since we're only one of millions, we feel it is diluted enough not to raise too many ethical concerns.]

[You can't congratulate millions of California Democrats, obviously, but if you do know anyone in California who has not yet voted, we would encourage you to strongly urge them to make the effort to cast their ballot.]





This is getting so bad he's now almost the "default, go-to Democrat" for this award. In other words, the new Joe Lieberman.

Once again, we have to give the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to Senator Joe Manchin. He wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal this week where he essentially sabotaged the entire effort to pass Joe Biden's domestic agenda.

Nobody knows how serious he is. If he follows through, it might mean the death of all hope that Congress will pass any of Biden's agenda. If Manchin takes down the budget reconciliation bill, then progressives will likely retaliate by taking down the bipartisan infrastructure bill in the House. In that case, nothing would get done and the 2022 midterms would be devastating for Democrats.

This didn't deter Manchin from making ludicrous complaints about the bill in his opinion piece. He warns of adding to the national debt, even though the people writing the bill swear it will all be paid for (and thus not add one penny to the debt). Manchin warns of spending too much money, and says none of the programs the bill would create are imminently needed. He also seems to have a problem with the deadline, saying: "While some have suggested this reconciliation legislation must be passed now, I believe that making budgetary decisions under artificial political deadlines never leads to good policy or sound decisions." This is pure horsefeathers, of course, because in Congress (the Senate in particular) virtually nothing happens without a deadline forcing everyone to act. And that definitely includes the budget.

Manchin, obviously, wants his pound of flesh. He also wants the political attention, as always.

It is really time for Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer to take Manchin out to the metaphorical woodshed (as Ronald Reagan used to say) and have an earnest chat with him about what it means to be a Democrat. And what Biden's agenda means for the Democratic Party as a whole. Because Manchin is obviously unclear on any of that.

For the time being, he'll have one more Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to add to his growing pile of them.

[Contact Senator Joe Manchin on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]




Volume 633 (9/3/21)

We begin with an editorial note that we didn't know where else to include. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission dedicated a historical marker this week at the building where a very historic break-in took place. No, not the Watergate, this was a remote F.B.I. office where, back in 1971, a bunch of antiwar organizers broke in and stole all their files in the middle of the night. This led to the exposure of COINTELPRO and all of its excesses and illegalities, and to the Church Committee which radically reformed the F.B.I.

We interviewed the Washington Post reporter who broke the story, Betty Medsger, back when she released a book about it (The Burglary) where the co-conspirators finally went public (they were never caught, even though they had absolutely enraged J. Edgar Hoover, which was a very dangerous thing to do). So we are indeed glad to see the state of Pennsylvania putting up a monument to these brave burglars. So if you're ever in the town of Media, outside of Philadelphia, stop by and visit the new marker! We plan to, the next time we're in the area.

This week our talking points have an obvious theme. All our talking points this week (well, with the possible exception of the last one, which is only tangentially related) deal with the situation in Texas. This is an important milestone, and Democrats really need to be out in front in this ideological fight. So far Republicans have all but ceded the field, since they are too timid to actually publicly state what they are for. So Democrats really should step into the void and set the terms of this debate. It's a political framing opportunity which should not be missed, to put it another way.



Extreme, fringe views

Republicans never hesitate to use this tactic, even when it isn't even remotely true, so Democrats should return the favor.

"Texas Republicans have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the most extreme, fringe views are now central to the Republican Party's ideology. No exception for rape or incest? Seriously? That is not a mainstream view. That is not what the public wants. The extreme moralizers of the right wing have taken over the party, plain and simple. They don't care about the Constitution -- they engineered the new law to do an end-run around it. They don't care about women's rights. They don't care that women with the time and money can simply go to another state to get an abortion while poor or working-class women cannot. They don't care about any of that -- all they care about is forcing their extreme religious viewpoints on everyone else. Anyone who denies that extremism has now completely taken over the Republican Party just isn't paying attention."



American Taliban

Journalists should be able to dig these clips out -- they're not that old, after all.

"I would sincerely like to see any Republican politician interviewed on television be asked why he or she so forcefully stood up for the rights of Afghan women when opposing President Biden's withdrawal -- but now refuses to stand up for the rights of Texas women. Sure, the Taliban is going to crush women's freedom in a country halfway around the world, but the American version of religious theocrats just removed constitutional rights from women right here at home, in Texas. So please ask them why Afghan women's rights are more important to them than American women's rights."



Rapists' bill of rights

These next two are from a book called The Political Brain: The Role Of Emotion In Deciding The Fate Of The Nation by Drew Westin. These were given as examples of how Democratic political candidates should use emotion in their campaign ads (something Republicans do much better than Democrats). They don't exactly fit the Texas situation, because it's a law not a political candidate, but it would be pretty simple to change them to fit the current situation. We chose to run these unaltered rather than do this simple rewrite.

"My opponent puts the rights of rapists above the rights of their victims, guaranteeing every rapist the right to choose the mother of his child. What he's proposing is a rapists' bill of rights."

This is the logical entailment of the Republicans' "culture of life." Perhaps the most fundamental right of a woman is to choose whose children she will bear. Yet in the Republican morality tale, if a woman is raped, she must have her rapist's baby. She can give up the child -- who is her own flesh and blood, mingled with the DNA of her rapist -- or she can wake up every morning and see the eyes of her rapist in her child. Those are her two choices. Tell that to the father of a teenage girl in rural Virginia and see how he responds. It is a deeply repugnant, and deeply immoral, position. But its repugnance is only apparent when you make the associative links.




Or a 13-year-old, for that matter

These two are powerful arguments to make, for people somewhere in the middle of the abortion debate (people somewhat uncomfortable with abortion, but also people who realize there should be exceptions to any law). This one, if rewritten, would be even more brutal because the whole "consent" thing doesn't even exist anymore. Perhaps finish up by asking how many 16-year-old girls have the finances and independence to travel to another state, instead.

From Westin, again:

"My opponent believes that if a sixteen-year-old girl is molested by her father, she should be forced by the government to have his child, and if she doesn't want to, she should be forced by the government to go to the man who raped her and ask for his consent."




Vigilantism now part of Republican platform

This is all of a pattern, really.

"The Republican Party, more and more, has been moving away from their long-held public support of 'law and order' and are now not only encouraging but legislating vigilantism into law. A man who killed two people during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin is held up as some sort of hero. Republicans are now calling the rioters and insurrectionists from January 6th 'martyrs and political prisoners.' When Trump campaign thugs tried to run a busload of Biden supporters off the road in Texas, Republicans cheered. Donald Trump encouraged violence against his detractors from the very start. But now they're enacting laws which actually protect vigilantes. Some states have granted legal immunity to drivers who plow into crowds of protesters. In Texas, their new abortion restriction law can only be enforced by private citizens -- and anyone can sue anyone in an attempt to be rewarded to the tune of $10,000. This is an ugly thing to see -- a political party not only cheering on but actually aiding and abetting vigilantes. So much for all that 'law and order' nonsense, eh?"



My body, my choice (but only on masks)

This is a pretty easy case to make -- which hordes of people already have, on social media.

"Oh, so it's 'my body, my choice' when it comes to your 'freedom' to spread an infectious and deadly disease rather than be required to wear a piece of cloth on your face, but when it comes to forcing a woman to bear her unwanted child that was the result of a rape, then there's no more 'my body, my choice' to be found. Then it is 'government knows best.' The hypocrisy of Republicans never ceases to amaze, folks."



Not in the Constitution

Our last talking point is really a plea to Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who at this point hold the fate of not just the Democratic Party but American democracy in their hands.

"The filibuster is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers did specify a few instances where Senate supermajorities would be required in the Constitution's text -- such as the threshold to convict in an impeachment trial. But not one word is in there about requiring a supermajority to pass laws. The Founders designed the Senate to be a simple majority -- whichever side gets more votes wins. It's a pretty simple idea: the majority rules. Not a minority of two-fifths. It is time to restore the Senate's rules to what the authors of the United States Constitution intended, by jettisoning the antimajoritarian filibuster for good."




Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Friday Talking Points -- Supreme Court Shows Its True Colors (Original Post) ChrisWeigant Sep 2021 OP
K&R. nt flying rabbit Sep 2021 #1
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Friday Talking Points -- ...