Menzo
5846
LOL, as if weāll get better results on voting rights. Double ugh.
Yeah, voting rights has no chance, and the Court would spike it anyway. Far better to give free money to the peoples and do something about climate change.
I guess to be fair, theyāre saying they canāt get it done before recess and want to take it up again when they get back from vacation, and try to pass the voting rights act now instead.
Menzo
5850
But voting rights has no path to success either. Or am I missing something?
Lucy, football, leftists.
Never trust Manchin.
Timex
5852
Honestly, getting voting rights stuff through would be more important than the BBB, because itāll allow you to actually do stuff in the future, whereas if democracy fails then you aināt getting anything.
There seems to be some sense that a filibuster carve out on the debt ceiling has moved the needle on a filibuster carve out for voting rights. But I donāt really believe it. And I donāt think there is anything substantial in the VRA that will survive contact with the Court.
JoshL
5854
To all the people who said āthe progressives should just vote to pass the infrastructure bill, why wouldnāt they?ā, well now you know. Thanks for your wonderful and helpful input.
Everyone loves an I told you so!
I really donāt understand the rationale that says hey, the Supreme Court threw out our law that required pre-clearance, so letās snooker them by passing another law that requires pre-clearance. It seems like a performance, a demonstration, rather than a solution.
CraigM
5857
The supreme court decision threw it out on the basis that the reasoning provided was based on a status quo ante from the 1960ās and that it was no longer valid to use that as a basis of current law. So to keep it in place would require passing a new law based on the current state of things.
So the idea is that by revising the statute to modern standards and based on current examples of malfeasance would placate this reading.
And if the court threatens to throw it out? Use that as the basis to increase the size of the court by appointing 4+ new justices.
Iād rather not have to say it. But, alas, time has proven the hesitance correct.
Oh no! The fox ate the hen while we were on the other side of the river. Who could have possibly foreseen this?
I believe there is a way to say it without, in the parlance of our times, saying it. :)
CraigM
5860
Maybe, but given the outright hostility evidenced towards progressives who were in favor of the two bills being linked? This is the small cold comfort they get for receiving that wrongly directed scorn.
I guess the context I was thinking about was pointed comments directed at other members of the Qt3 community.
Given this was patently false at the time of the ruling* Iām not sure why āmore recent evidenceā would make a difference.
*Congress had re-visited the statute multiple times after initial passage, looked at the world, determined āstates are still trying this shitā, and re-authorized it.
Papageno
5863
Quelle surprise!
Thereās not going to be a second VRA either. It would work against the Trumpist White Fascist Ethno-state agenda, which people like McConnell are totally cool with as long as they get their precious tax cuts and complete free rein for large companies to extract value from employees, land, water, and air regardless of externalities.
