[Gorefest]

Meanwhile, the UK government is trying to curtail the human rights of their population. Sadly it is looking bleak on both sides of the pond. Pot, kettle, etc.

[Maark Abbott]

Gorefest, on 22 June 2022 - 09:12 AM, said:

Meanwhile, the UK government is trying to curtail the human rights of their population. Sadly it is looking bleak on both sides of the pond. Pot, kettle, etc.

Those of us voting against Brexit said this would happen and, well, it sucks to be proven right sometimes.

[Macros]

It boggles my mind that and sane non wealthy person would vote Tory over here as well Gwynn don't worry.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Gorefest, on 22 June 2022 - 09:12 AM, said:

Meanwhile, the UK government is trying to curtail the human rights of their population. Sadly it is looking bleak on both sides of the pond. Pot, kettle, etc.

IDK, from this PoV it looks a bit more like pot, black hole (with Trump &co riding my shoulder...).

Meanwhile, that idiot Biden's calling for a gas tax holiday. Congress will have to approve---they probably will (unless Republicans think their position is strong enough to vote against it, since it would help Democrats in the upcoming election), though they almost certainly shouldn't:


'If it gets through Congress, a gas tax holiday would [... lower] retail gasoline prices by as much as 18 cents a gallon.

A gas tax holiday would be politically popular. [...] show that Biden is taking tangible action [...]

"The risk is that at a time when the supply-and-demand balance that sets prices is already extremely out of balance, it would enable more Americans to hit the road," [...]

"Barack Obama was right. A gas tax holiday was a bad idea in 2008 and it's a bad idea today," Senator Bernie Sanders wrote [...] in March.

Like other progressives, Sanders instead threw his weight behind a windfall profit tax on the oil-and-gas industry, a potentially-popular move that carries its own set of risks.

[...] gas tax holiday would not be helpful and could even be inflationary, forcing the Fed to raise rates more aggressively.

"I'm not a fan. You want people to drive less and use less gas. This works against that objective," [...] "It's not well-targeted."

[...] energy companies may not pass along the entire savings from a gas tax holiday.

[...] this levy helps finance the Highway Trust Fund, which is already short on funding. [...]

Unless those funds are replaced from other sources, suspending the gas tax would sap resources for building and repairing highways at a time when the price tag on those projects is going up due to soaring costs for construction materials and labor.

Energy Secretary [...] acknowledged [...] one challenge of suspending the gas tax is that it "funds the roads."

"Self-defeating" [...]

"It would be partially self-defeating, not that meaningful for prices at the pump and costly for the federal government," [...]

[...] If Biden and Congress do go this route, they will face a problem down the road when the tax holiday expires. "It's going to be very unpopular when prices snap back up by 18 cents a gallon," [...]

And that raises the specter of a temporary gas tax suspension morphing into a permanent holiday.'

Gas tax holiday: There's a reason Obama once bashed this idea as a 'gimmick'

[Gorefest]

Oh, I agree that the US stuff is a lot more scary and bonkers. But I think it is a bit disingenious for Brits to start chucking rocks with the current Tory wackjobs in charge. It seems to be a global phenomenon that populist and arch conservative rhetoric is winning ground rapidly. Older voters are trying to turn back time and they still carry more weight at the ballot box, because they pay/bribe and they vote more loyally.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 22 June 2022 - 05:08 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Seems I was wrong before:

'Gas tax holiday likely to land on empty amid hurdles in Congress

[...] Even if he can get all 50 Democratic senators behind the legislation, he would still need 10 Republicans to join the cause to advance the measure, which seems extremely unlikely.

Republicans widely oppose lifting the gas tax — even some Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi[...] Pelosi has previously argued that oil companies could pocket the savings and not pass it onto the consumers.

[...] Sen. Tom Carper, a Democrat from Biden's home state of Delaware, said in a tweet he was "glad" Biden was exploring ideas for gas prices, but added it was a "a shortsighted and inefficient way to provide relief."

With Manchin and Carper sounding opposed, Democrats also would fail if they tried to pass such a measure themselves through a procedure called reconciliation, which would only require 50 votes to advance.'

Gas tax holiday likely to land on empty amid hurdles in Congress

Well, that's a relief... meanwhile Biden will gain another way to complain about Republican obstructionism.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

The gas tax holiday is probably a bad idea functionally, but it might not be a bad one politically. Being seen to do something, even if it ends up not really having an effect, is probably better than doing nothing. I can't see Republicans coming on board though.

Gorefest, on 22 June 2022 - 05:06 PM, said:

Oh, I agree that the US stuff is a lot more scary and bonkers. But I think it is a bit disingenious for Brits to start chucking rocks with the current Tory wackjobs in charge. It seems to be a global phenomenon that populist and arch conservative rhetoric is winning ground rapidly. Older voters are trying to turn back time and they still carry more weight at the ballot box, because they pay/bribe and they vote more loyally.

Totally fine for us Canucks though

[Maark Abbott]

Gorefest, on 22 June 2022 - 05:06 PM, said:

Oh, I agree that the US stuff is a lot more scary and bonkers. But I think it is a bit disingenious for Brits to start chucking rocks with the current Tory wackjobs in charge. It seems to be a global phenomenon that populist and arch conservative rhetoric is winning ground rapidly. Older voters are trying to turn back time and they still carry more weight at the ballot box, because they pay/bribe and they vote more loyally.

What really depresses me about it all is

"My daddy didn't fight in the war so that we could be part of the EU German Empire!"
- and they then proceed to vote for what is basically at this stage a bunch of fascists (everything is the fault of the alien, let's make Britain great again, etc).

Can't make it up.

[Primateus]

Maark Abbott, on 23 June 2022 - 07:43 AM, said:

Gorefest, on 22 June 2022 - 05:06 PM, said:

Oh, I agree that the US stuff is a lot more scary and bonkers. But I think it is a bit disingenious for Brits to start chucking rocks with the current Tory wackjobs in charge. It seems to be a global phenomenon that populist and arch conservative rhetoric is winning ground rapidly. Older voters are trying to turn back time and they still carry more weight at the ballot box, because they pay/bribe and they vote more loyally.

What really depresses me about it all is

"My daddy didn't fight in the war so that we could be part of the EU German Empire!"
- and they then proceed to vote for what is basically at this stage a bunch of fascists (everything is the fault of the alien, let's make Britain great again, etc).

Can't make it up.

Yeah, but, you know...At least they're English fascists, right?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Clarence Thomas' Maximalist Second Amendment Ruling Is a Nightmare for Gun Control

The justice declared that most restrictions on firearms are presumptively unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court commenced a revolution in Second Amendment law [...] The decision will unleash a tidal wave of lower court rulings invalidating laws designed to protect Americans from the carnage of gun violence. And it will stymie current efforts to reduce that violence through innovative new solutions to this epidemic. For gun control advocates, it is the worst-case scenario.

[...] about one in four Americans—lived in a state with stringent limits on concealed carry. [Now] zero do [and not because we've all been shot... yet].

[...] courts may no longer rely on empirical evidence in upholding gun control laws. They cannot[...] cite the heightened lethality of a particular weapon. Such data is now irrelevant. Rather, they can only ask whether there is some "historical analogue" from 1791 (when the Second Amendment was ratified) or 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was ratified, applying the Second Amendment to the states). One might assume that this analysis would only shield weapons that were in common use in 1791 or 1868. But Thomas clarified that "any modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense" are also protected under the Constitution, even if they did not exist until recently.

[...] ignored ample history indicating that states have long imposed similar restrictions on concealed carry. Instead, he cherry picked his own preferred sources to build a misleading narrative of the United States as a libertarian paradise[...]

[...] It is difficult to overstate the consequences of Thomas' decision.'

SCOTUS decision in New York concealed carry law is a nightmare for gun control

[Lady Bliss]

Azath Vitr (D, on 23 June 2022 - 04:39 PM, said:

'Clarence Thomas' Maximalist Second Amendment Ruling Is a Nightmare for Gun Control

The justice declared that most restrictions on firearms are presumptively unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court commenced a revolution in Second Amendment law [...] The decision will unleash a tidal wave of lower court rulings invalidating laws designed to protect Americans from the carnage of gun violence. And it will stymie current efforts to reduce that violence through innovative new solutions to this epidemic. For gun control advocates, it is the worst-case scenario.

[...] about one in four Americans—lived in a state with stringent limits on concealed carry. [Now] zero do [and not because we've all been shot... yet].

[...] courts may no longer rely on empirical evidence in upholding gun control laws. They cannot[...] cite the heightened lethality of a particular weapon. Such data is now irrelevant. Rather, they can only ask whether there is some "historical analogue" from 1791 (when the Second Amendment was ratified) or 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was ratified, applying the Second Amendment to the states). One might assume that this analysis would only shield weapons that were in common use in 1791 or 1868. But Thomas clarified that "any modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense" are also protected under the Constitution, even if they did not exist until recently.

[...] ignored ample history indicating that states have long imposed similar restrictions on concealed carry. Instead, he cherry picked his own preferred sources to build a misleading narrative of the United States as a libertarian paradise[...]

[...] It is difficult to overstate the consequences of Thomas' decision.'

SCOTUS decision in New York concealed carry law is a nightmare for gun control

I just read about this as well as the 9th circuit appeals ruling in California to the same effect. The US is getting scarier and scarier all the time. Not sure what we can do at this point.

[amphibian]

Clarence Thomas is one of the all time weirdest and completely self centered legal figures in history. He is someone who firmly believes in radical self sufficiency to the point of closing doors he went through, harassing others, being a well paid tool of the rich and racist whites he hated as a young teen, and has decades of some of the strangest legal opinions in the last 100 years. The shitty thing is that Scalia was on the bench with him and his opinions were often even worse than that.

Reagan fucked us back in the 70s and 80s and continues to do so today.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Reagan wasn't all bad. Didn't you see the wealth trickle down?

As far as I can see, the first red flag law was enacted in 1999. I'm going to assume based on Thomas's reasoning that red flag laws will now be found unconstitutional. Laws on maximum magazine capacity probably fall into the same category.

[Tsundoku]

Hilary losing in 2016 really fucked your country - and by extension the world - for generations.

That is, if we don't all die in a nuclear fire because of a Putin and Xi-enabling Trump you guys will wind up living in Gilead. Feel free to emigrate over here.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 24 June 2022 - 06:03 AM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Clarence Thomas' Latest Guns Decision Is Ahistorical and Anti-Originalist

[...] In fact, guns have generally been treated as a form of property under American law for more than three centuries, a fact that appears to have escaped the notice of Justice Thomas and the court's newest originalists despite their professed commitment to an interpretive approach that focuses on history, text, and tradition.

[...] one of the most intellectually dishonest and poorly argued decisions in American judicial history. Indeed, with little sense of irony, Thomas even quotes Justice [...] Taney's infamous opinion in Dred Scott approvingly, not only treating it as good legal authority, but suggesting that the author of the worst decision in American law understood the Second Amendment better than any other judicial figure in American history. Turning to Taney for judicial inspiration would have once ended a judge's career, but the court's new originalist majority appears most of the time to be making history, by inventing it, instead of interpreting the law. The old originalism [...] sought to use history to constrain judicial discretion and activism. The new originalism favored by Thomas and his fellow originalists has embraced judicial activism on steroids. [...] the court's current use of originalism more clearly resembles an act of ventriloquism in which old texts are pressed into the service of modern agendas with little regard to how they were read at the time they were written[...] turns historical actors into little more than stage dummies for the justices to project their own modern values and ideas onto the past.'

Clarence Thomas' gun decision in Bruen is ahistorical, anti-originalist

... so it's more like 'originalism' in the sense of 'this interpretation is very "original" relative to the source material and the historical tradition' (Humpty Dumpty constitution...).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 24 June 2022 - 02:20 PM

[Malankazooie]

Malankazooie, on 21 June 2022 - 12:05 AM, said:

Oh yeah, this could be the week too, I think. SCOTUS has not much time left in the session before they are adjourned until October, yes? So that thing, that everyone is expecting, might very well come down this week.

Welp, it happened. Cowardly to do it on the last day on a Friday. I guess security has been assigned to the conservative judges? Whoo-boy, summer 2020 ver 2.0 straight ahead.

[QuickTidal]

Malankazooie, on 24 June 2022 - 02:28 PM, said:

Malankazooie, on 21 June 2022 - 12:05 AM, said:

Oh yeah, this could be the week too, I think. SCOTUS has not much time left in the session before they are adjourned until October, yes? So that thing, that everyone is expecting, might very well come down this week.

Welp, it happened. Cowardly to do it on the last day on a Friday. I guess security has been assigned to the conservative judges? Whoo-boy, summer 2020 ver 2.0 straight ahead.

Yep. There it is. I feel bad for you guys. Your country is about to go through it...all because a minority of people are completely power hungry assholes.

EDIT to add: Is the silver lining that this keeps the Democrats there house in the fall? Does this get the masses out to vote to keep another branch safe from this extremism? Or do you all dive headfirst into Gilead?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 24 June 2022 - 02:40 PM

[Lady Bliss]

We’re all fucked!

[Primateus]

QuickTidal, on 24 June 2022 - 02:34 PM, said:

Yep. There it is. I feel bad for you guys. Your country is about to go through it...all because a minority of people are completely power hungry assholes.

EDIT to add: Is the silver lining that this keeps the Democrats there house in the fall? Does this get the masses out to vote to keep another branch safe from this extremism? Or do you all dive headfirst into Gilead?

The Democrats maintaining, much less gaining ground in Congress, seems unlikely to me. If people didn't care enough before, why should they care now? They would have be so godawful mindblowingly stupid to not have known this was the Republican plan all along.

It sounds to me like the apathy is just too strong.

[Malankazooie]

It's a state issue now, so yeah, probably should learn yourself up on the particulars in your state. State elections very often are not aligned with federal elections of congress (i.e. midterms and presidential election cycle). My state has seen an uptick in abortion tourism, it will grow even more now, as we are bordered by quite a few states, some with trigger laws, that ban abortion. Pot tourism, now abortion tourism. I think our cities's chamber of commerce might need to re-workshop slogans to entice people to visit.

https://coloradosun....ill-signed-law/