I thought the exact same thing.
Republican has serious, not-at-all crazy offer of helpful advice for Biden:
Thatās pretty hilarious:
Newsom won reelection easily and now has the luxury of turning his ambitious eyes completely toward the White House. . . Republicans can write off Newsom all they want as the politician who āruinedā California. The fact is, he is a proven vote-getter and has a formidable Democratic machine behind him. More than that, he has demonstrated that he is no political wallflower and seemingly has no intention of āwaiting his turn.ā
Both Newsom and Harris have run for statewide offices in California and neither had any trouble winning their elections. (Harris actually won her Senate bid against another Democrat.) Iām trying to put my finger on what, exactly, it is that makes Gavin Newsom a āproven vote-getterā over against Kamala Harris.
And I really strongly believe that running a COVID governor in '24 is the wrong move if Biden ends up having to bow out.
Dems would have to win the House for that anyways. VP nominations need a majority of the House as well.
If Harris is removed or dies, I suspect Republicans would never allow a VP, and hope Biden croaks so they can get President McCarthy.
A definite weakness of the Presidential succession act is that if the House is held by the opposing party, the Speaker has no incentive to confirm a VP nomination. Succession should have remained with the Cabinet precisely to forestall that kind of shenanigan.
The Founders never predicted Fox News and the polarization of America.
Or political parties, or tickets. The person with the most EC votes was president and the second place finisher was vice president. Imagine that today.
The amendment to make the VP succession require both houses of Congress was I think late 20th century.
(part of 25th amendment) 1960s
The VP automatically succeeds to the Presidency on the removal, resignation or death of the President. Congress has no say in the matter, per the 25th Amendment. This was not really a change; the original text of the Constitution conferred the Powers and Duties of the Presidency on the VP, which was ambiguous enough that people argued about whether someone was the President or was acting as the President.
Replacing the VP does require a vote of Congress per that Amendment, and prior to that change there was simply no way at all to replace a VP and the position remained vacant until the next election. I guess we are lucky that this oversight in succession planning by the Founders never had a chance to bite us.
Of course Mike Lee voted against it. Of course. Romney voted for it at least.
Surprisingly, this legislation was also supported by the LDS church. For those of yāall that remember Prop 8, itās quite the change of tune.
Here in Missouri, our outgoing Senator Roy Blunt supported the measure. (And Josh Hawley, of course, opposed).
I think itās the kind of ācompromiseā that will appeal to some culture warriors. It requires that states give full faith and credit to gay marriages performed in other states where it is legal, but not that states themselves issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Ugly, but workable I guess, and the only way to get 60 votes. It doesnāt actually codify Obergefell, which requires that states themselves permit gay marriages.
Iām not familiar with the nitty-gritty, so thanks for the details!
Thankfully, were gay marriage bans to be on the table again at the state level I canāt imagine there are more than a handful of states where it could pass at this point. Iām actually curious now if any serious study has been given to what factors led to popular opinion to shift so rapidly and dramatically on this issue. Was it simply people experiencing that it didnāt actually lead to any negative outcomes for ātraditionalā marriages? Something else?
Is it like abortion, where a lot of states have laws on the books that were struck down by Obergefell? Those laws might be necroāed by reversing Obergefell, and those states might have a very hard time mustering the political will to repeal them.
Anyway, this federal law āguaranteeā leaves room for a patchwork where some states practice gay marriage while others do not, and every state honors gay marriages done by other states.
Good point, I bet youāre right that a lot of states would need to do work to make it legal again. I still think it would get a potentially surprising amount of traction even in very red states.
Could be. I definitely think it has lost salience as a wedge culture war issue.
Unless you live in a yurt in the hinterlands, you know several gay people, and probably you have at least one gay relative. And chances are you probably like at least one of the gay people you know. So asking you to hate them and take away their rights is a tough sell.
But there is still a chance to use the last vestiges of your homophobia against transsexuals! You donāt know any of them, do you? Did you know that ātheyā are ruining womenās sports? Ruining!