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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

In It to Win It

In It to Win It's Journal
In It to Win It's Journal
July 2, 2024

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer insists Biden can win her state and says she's behind him 100%

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer insists Biden can win her state and says she's behind him 100%


LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Monday insisted that President Joe Biden can still win her state, a key battleground in the 2024 election, even as many national Democrats question whether Biden should move forward after his shaky debate performance.

Whitmer's statement comes as many in her party question whether she could step in for Biden and run against Republican Donald Trump this fall. Whitmer and several other top national Democrats have publicly backed Biden since Thursday's debate.

“I am proud to support Joe Biden as our nominee and I am behind him 100 percent in the fight to defeat Donald Trump," she said in her statement. “Not only do I believe Joe can win Michigan, I know he can because he’s got the receipts: he’s lowered health care costs, brought back manufacturing jobs, and is committed to restoring the reproductive freedom women lost under Donald Trump.”
July 2, 2024

Trump may or may not sign an abortion ban, but any little protection of abortion that remains in federal law

would go away if Trump is elected.

The Biden Administration is litigating in federal court to have emergency abortions protected by EMTALA, a case in which the Biden DOJ proactively initiated. The hypothetical next Trump Administration won't fight for that.

A future Congress may never deliver an abortion ban to Trump if he's elected again, but he will continue appointing anti-abortion judges to the federal bench.

The Biden Administration is litigating to maintain FDA approval of abortion medication.

The Supreme Court has pretty much made clear that they love a unitary executive. I can imagine that Trump signs an executive order in an attempt to revoke the approval of abortion medication.

All the voter-approved state constitutional amendments that protects abortion may make you feel safe, but mean absolutely nothing and is no hindrance to an anti-abortion executive branch and anti-abortion federal judges.

To top off all of your nightmares, it would give Trump an opportunity to appoint Matthew Kacsmaryk to the Supreme Court. FOR. A. LIFETIME!

July 2, 2024

Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person..."

Keith Boykin
@keithboykin

Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military...to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?"

Trump’s Lawyer: "That could well be an official act."

– Trump v. US, oral arguments



https://x.com/keithboykin/status/1807882854178882019
July 1, 2024

Mississippi law restricting children's social media use blocked

Mississippi law restricting children's social media use blocked


(Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday blocked Mississippi from enforcing a new law that requires users of social media platforms to verify their ages and restricts access by minors to their sites if they lack parental consent, saying it was likely unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden in Gulfport, Mississippi, sided with tech industry trade group NetChoice in finding the law unduly restricted its users' free speech rights in violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

It marked the latest ruling in which a court blocked a state law designed to protect young people online as lawmakers nationwide look for ways to address rising concerns about the dangers posed by social media to the mental health of children.

The measure, which was set to take effect on Monday, required all users to verify their ages before they could open accounts and required minors under 18 to obtain parental consent to do so.

NetChoice, whose members include Meta's Facebook and Instagram, Alphabet's YouTube, Snap Inc's Snapchat and Elon Musk's X, sued in June, arguing the law, H.B. 1126, signed into law by Republican Governor Tate Reeves, stifled users' free speech and would force online businesses to censor speech.
July 1, 2024

The Court's Trump immunity decision is a blueprint for dictatorship.

Vox


The Court’s six Republicans handed down a decision on Monday that gives Donald Trump such sweeping immunity from prosecution that there are unlikely to be any legal checks on his behavior if he returns to the White House. The Court’s three Democrats dissented.

Trump v. United States is an astonishing opinion. It holds that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution — essentially, a license to commit crimes — so long as they use the official powers of their office to do so.

Broadly speaking, Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion reaches three conclusions. The first is that when the president takes any action under the authority given to him by the Constitution itself, his authority is “conclusive and preclusive” and thus he cannot be prosecuted. Thus, for example, a president could not be prosecuted for pardoning someone, because the Constitution explicitly gives the chief executive the “Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.”

One question that has loomed over this case for months is whether presidential immunity is so broad that the president could order the military to assassinate a political rival. While this case was before a lower court, one judge asked if Trump could be prosecuted if he’d ordered “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival” and Trump’s lawyer answered that he could not unless Trump had previously been successfully impeached and convicted for doing so.

Roberts’s opinion in Trump, however, seems to go even further than Trump’s lawyer did. The Constitution, after all, states that the president “shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” So, if presidential authority is “conclusive and preclusive” when presidents exercise their constitutionally granted powers, the Court appears to have ruled that yes, Trump could order the military to assassinate one of his political opponents. And nothing can be done to him for it.



https://x.com/imillhiser/status/1807843504279678988
July 1, 2024

Elie Mystal's response to Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader
@RalphNader

A dictatorial, unelected majority in the Supreme Court has just rendered America a dictatorial president above the law. Thank you Hillary Clinton, whose blundering campaign let the dictatorial Trump become president and led to a rightwing dictatorial majority on the Supreme Court. -R

Elie Mystal
@ElieNYC

MAYBE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS ISN'T THERE TO WRITE THIS OPINION TODAY IF YOU DON' T RUN FOR PRESIDENT OR DID YOU THINK PEOPLE WOULD FORGET THAT ON TODAY OF ALL MOTHERFUCKING DAYS???

https://x.com/ElieNYC/status/1807841731435717056
July 1, 2024

I know the election is months away (which in a lifetime for a campaign)... but I'm getting kind of anxious

Because I feel like the universe is aligning for Trump. This man is like a cockroach, he just won't go away. He seems more lucky than a cat with 9 lives.

On top of that, I came across a couple of videos that got a lot of reactions this weekend that ranted about the debate. Specifically, the parts that caught my attention is that they blame Joe Biden for the loss of abortion rights, so they question why should we elect Joe Biden to restore Roe since "he's the reason it's gone." Seemingly, these videos are people that did vote for Joe Biden in 2020. I'm kind of worried that although abortion is sticking to the Republican Party, it is not sticking as much to Trump specifically as it does to the broader Republican Party.

I feel that a certain slice of people that do care about abortion rights aren't connecting Trump to the judges he appointed that overturned Roe; or, generally, they aren't connecting the Supreme Court to the loss, or restoration and preservation, of abortion rights and therefore aren't seeing the need to have a Democrat in the White House to appoint judges that could restore and/or preserve abortion rights.

People commented and made response videos but the lies spread faster than the truthful responses.

June 30, 2024

Two remarkable dissents highlight flaws in Iowa abortion ruling

https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2024/06/30/two-remarkable-dissents-highlight-flaws-in-iowa-abortion-ruling/



Official Iowa Supreme Court photo (2022)


“Nothing promotes life like a forced hysterectomy preventing a woman from ever becoming pregnant again because she could not terminate a doomed pregnancy under the medical emergency exception,” wrote Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Susan Christensen near the end of her dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v Reynolds VI.

In that case, four Iowa Supreme Court justices ruled on June 28 that the state can enforce a near-total abortion ban (House File 732) while litigation proceeds in lower court. Reversing a Polk County District Court ruling, the majority determined the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed in showing the ban violates pregnant Iowans’ due process rights. The majority also declared that abortion restrictions are subject to “rational basis” review, which will make it far easier for the government to defend the law against the plaintiffs’ other constitutional claims.

Writing in dissent, the chief justice illuminated the suffering that will follow from this “giant step backward” for Iowa women. An equally remarkable opinion by Justice Edward Mansfield—the author of the 2022 decision that overturned Iowa’s abortion rights precedent—warned that the majority’s new approach to abortion cases “disserves the people of Iowa and their constitution.”
June 30, 2024

Abortion rights groups argue Florida is trying to throw up barriers to amendment

Abortion rights groups argue Florida is trying to throw up barriers to amendment


TALLAHASSEE, Florida — Abortion-rights groups in Florida are locked in a battle with the state over the cost for a ballot measure that would overturn the state’s six-week ban.

The fight is over a seemingly obscure fiscal impact statement estimating the cost to the state for passing the proposed constitutional amendment. It highlights how both pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion forces are clawing for every inch of ground ahead of a campaign that will see tens of millions of dollars spent across the country’s third-largest state.

And, abortion-rights activists say, it shows how the state’s Republican leaders are trying to defeat the November ballot measure at every turn.

“They almost always put up as many procedural obstacles as possible,” Anna Hochkammer of the Florida Women's Freedom Coalition said. “They try and make these processes as expensive and complicated as possible, and this is another example of that tactic.”

Florida law requires each ballot initiative to include a financial impact statement for voters to consider. The statement for the abortion-rights amendment — which would allow for the procedure in the state up to the point of a pregnancy’s viability — was finalized in November of last year, well before the state’s current, six-week ban went into effect. At the time, state economists said the impact of the six-week ban on state finances could be significant, but because the law had not yet taken effect, there was not enough data to accurately crunch the numbers.

Abortion-rights groups sued, demanding that the state update its estimates now that the ban has gone into place.

Profile Information

Member since: Sun May 27, 2018, 06:53 PM
Number of posts: 8,654
Latest Discussions»In It to Win It's Journal