This is Act 1, with surely more acts to follow:
Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Regarding Texas SB8
The U.S. Department of Justice today issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland regarding Texas SB8:
“While the Justice Department urgently explores all options to challenge Texas SB8 in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion, we will continue to protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the FACE Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248.
“The FACE Act prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services. It also prohibits intentional property damage of a facility providing reproductive health services. The department has consistently obtained criminal and civil remedies for violations of the FACE Act since it was signed into law in 1994, and it will continue to do so now.
“The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities.
“We will not tolerate violence against those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services, physical obstruction or property damage in violation of the FACE Act.”
If you have an incident, concern, or questions, please contact the FBI at FBI.gov/tips or through the complaint portal civilrights.justice.gov.
Screen capture from the link above – we should be publicizing this far and wide:
h/t
WaterGirl
I hope the “Supremely Right-Wing Court” comes to rue the day that they allowed this travesty to become law.
Steeplejack
Apposite thread from @RSchooley:
People are understandably nervous about Garland’s low-key approach, both about January 6 specifically and about things like this generally.
WaterGirl
@Steeplejack: Who was the attorney general that let all that shit fly under T****?
Who are the people who are understandably nervous?
WaterGirl
@Steeplejack:
Which part of this seems low-key to you?
Eunicecycle
I see lots of talk about opposing violent means to stop abortion but the Texas law doesn’t use violence. I don’t see Garland’s response as addressing the issues in the law.
ETA: IANAL obviously
Baud
@Eunicecycle:
It doesn’t. It’s a messaging statement. The only statute he has to work with doesn’t address the Texas situation.
WaterGirl
@Eunicecycle: This certainly seems to apply:
But I am not a lawyer, either.
WaterGirl
@Baud: You don’t think this covers the Texas law? I do, but I am not a lawyer so I am asking you.
edit: I think this statement is also a strong signal that “open season on women” is not going to fly under this administration. I hope this helps other states like Florida slow their roll in trying to pass something similar.
Baud
@WaterGirl:
Lawsuits under the Texas law filed after an abortion has happened, I believe. It’s the law itself that intimidates people to not to provide abortions.
MomSense
@Eunicecycle:
IANAL but obstruction, intimidation or interference would seem to me to be applicable.
WaterGirl
@Baud: So do you think this statement from the US Attorney General is irrelevant? That it has no bearing on the situation that has been created with this appalling law?
Baud
@WaterGirl:
I think it’s meant cause people to hesitate before filing one of these bogus lawsuits.
WaterGirl
@Baud: As I said at #8, I think this statement is also a strong signal that “open season on women” is not going to fly under this administration. I hope this helps other states like Florida slow their roll in trying to pass something similar.
I think it’s also an attempt to stop the mob from forming in response to the law.
Baud
@WaterGirl:
Agreed. Like I said, messaging.
Perhaps the Texas law will inspire abortion terrorists, in which case the FACE Act will be directly applicable.
Another Scott
@Steeplejack: TheRealHoarse was incandescent that Garland wasn’t burning up the airwaves before the ruling and dissents were even released. I thought it was over the top, given that we didn’t even know their “reasoning” yet.
A limited temporary restraining order is in place:
Garland will use every tool he has – like this anti-intimidation law – and do it thoughtfully. It takes time.
He and his team know what they’re doing. They can’t make new laws, and people jumping on them demanding that they somehow do, or somehow fix it via green-lantern-bully-pulpiting, are not helping.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
craigie
As I understand it (a dangerous phrase) the law allows anyone to sue anyone, and if they don’t respond, it’s an automatic judgement. And of course responding costs money, but only for the “defendant”.
If that’s accurate, why not take the law at its word and start suing everyone in sight? It won’t matter that these are pointless suits, it will a) clog up the courts and b) result in a least some stuck pig screaming from some right winger forced birther who ends up with a judgement of $10K against them. For conservatives, nothing really happens until it happens to them.
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@WaterGirl: the neoliberal democrat party is acting like existing law, being enforced, can defeat the right (of which, actually, the democrat party is a part)
the fleftist movement wants grand gestures
Steeplejack
@WaterGirl:
It’s low-key in the sense that, as others have already pointed out in this thread, it talks past the critical issue with a callback to the status quo ante. Garland’s statement focuses on “reproductive health centers” and related violence (or threats), but the (new) problems occur before that: (1) women are going to be afraid to be seen going to an abortion provider, whether they end up receiving “abortion services” or not, because that immediately exposes them to the bounty hunters—no violence or threats involved; (2) and abortion providers are reportedly already curtailing or ceasing their provision of abortion services because of the new law, which also reduces the relevance of the FACE Act. The new Texas law takes the focus away from abortion providers and distributes it to Stasi-like informers and vigilantes.
It would be nice to get a feeling that the DOJ recognizes this as a fundamentally different situation that might require some thinking outside the box.
I am not a lawyer, and this situation is incredibly complicated, but this statement doesn’t fill me with confidence that the DOJ—at least for public consumption—is getting all the nuances. This Texas law (until overturned) is basically breaking new ground in the law, and I don’t think the DOJ is going to be able to get by just relying on what (sort of) worked before.
Eunicecycle
@WaterGirl: but the words before that talk about the threat of or the use of force. I don’t see the law as using any force.
lowtechcyclist
@WaterGirl:
The only interference the FACE act addresses, is that done by use or threat of force and physical obstruction.
This is waving a club when you’re being attacked with poison gas. The response has no impact on the actual threat.
lowtechcyclist
@WaterGirl:
It’s an admission of impotence. If I were playing the black pieces here, I’d be laughing my head off.
Ruckus
@Baud:
Up until now they haven’t really gotten what they want, 100% control over women’s bodies.
This TX law gives them that. The SC said sure why not.
And we know there will be violence because that seems to be entirely the point in the first place and it involves humans, so there will be.
And correct me if I’m wrong but Garland is the attorney general, his actions are to support the law, not assault people. This is Texas law, it’s been “approved” by the SC. Is he supposed to ride into Texas on his white horse and take military action? He worked for TLG and his hands were tied, he could have quit and who would have taken his place? He works for President Biden and he has room and guidance to actually do his job.
Baud
@Ruckus:
According to Twitter, apparently so.
Baud
We used to ask ourselves if we’d support a Democratic Trump.
I think the answer is, that’s exactly what a lot of us want.
lowtechcyclist
@Another Scott:
I’m sorry, but this bit of let’s-pretend that the FACE Act is of any use here makes me wonder if the Attorney General of the United States has taken leave of his senses.
I can deal with the bad news that the Federal government is limited in what it can do here. The pretense of a strong response when they’ve got nothin’, OTOH, scares the shit out of me.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Baud: no question the idea of a benign dictator underlies most Green Lantern/Do Something twitterism: A good President can/should/must govern by hurling righteous thunderbolts from the Oval Office.
Jon Fugelsang, who is not stupid, said in 2016 that President Bernie would govern by executive order and lose re-election but leave America irrevocably transformed for the better.
WaterGirl
@Steeplejack:
Do you really think the DOJ doesn’t recognize the complexity of the situation, or doesn’t get all the nuances?
You are welcome to think that, but I think it’s absurd to think that Merrick Garland doesn’t get it.
“While the Justice Department urgently explores all options to challenge Texas SB8 in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion…”
What part of the bolded statement leads you to think they don’t understand that the world is on fire over this law?
Baud
@lowtechcyclist:
Where did Garland characterize this response as strong or weak or anything. He gave a response that his statutory authoriries allowed him to give.
WaterGirl
@lowtechcyclist: I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
SiubhanDuinne
@Ruckus:
‘Scuse my ignorance, but who or what is TLG?
Ruckus
@lowtechcyclist:
I’ve been in a closed room with the most effective tear gas and had to take off my gas mask. This is what the military did to us in boot camp to show us it is bad but it doesn’t kill you. BTW just because of the way we got to leave the room I was the last out. This is non lethal tear gas and it was a physical assault, no doubt about it. Poison gas is a physical assault, no different than being shot at or having a night stick upside the head. All of them can kill you. Some are just more likely.
And when a club is what you have, it’s what you wave. The supreme court allowed the law. They said it’s OK. Had the SC not said that this would be an entirely different event. The state legislature of Texas is at fault and the supreme court is at fault. The current federal administration is not.
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@Ruckus: if merrick garland were mitt romney, he could be the avenging horseman
Steeplejack
@Another Scott:
Is my straw-man allergy acting up a bit? I’m not calling for some immediate “Green Lantern” fix. But I do think Garland and the DOJ could be more on point in addressing the actual issue. “Violence at abortion centers” is not it, or not all of it.
Another Scott
@lowtechcyclist: I take it as an appropriate, pre-emptive, message to the yahoos not to even think about using violence and intimidation against abortion providers and clinics.
Nothing more.
Cheers,
Scott.
Baud
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Yep. It’s very frustrating.
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@Baud: it’s what the bruenigs, & the staves of the jacobin & intercept, & the announcers at cumtown, chapo, & bad faith want
NotMax
@Jim, Foolish Literalist
Every E.O. is revocable, merely by the stroke of a pen.
lowtechcyclist
@Baud:
I want the truth. If it’s bad news, gimme the bad news. But don’t tell me that, by God, we’ll show them because we’ve got the best Nerf guns around, and we’re not afraid to use them.
WaterGirl
@MontyTheClipArtMongoose: Who cares what they want?
Steeplejack
@Baud:
C’mon, man. That’s bullshit, at least as far as this blog goes.
Ruckus
@SiubhanDuinne:
The Last Guy. I’m not allowed to use my preference so that I don’t have to type that disgusting name referencing the disgusting time and disgusting maladministration of the worst attempt of someone’s imitation of a human being.
WaterGirl
@Steeplejack: Baud can answer for himself, and no doubt will.
But I read Baud’s comments to mean that based on expectations that are expressed regarding what Biden/Garland should immediately do in any given situation – regardless of what the law allows or not – is an indication that at some level, conscious or not, people do want that at some level.
Steeplejack
@WaterGirl:
Then let me just say that their messaging could be a little more congruent with the whole “Don’t worry, we’ve got this” thing. A lot of people are worried about a Mueller 2.0 situation.
I will be interested to hear what valued commenter Kay thinks.
WaterGirl
@Ruckus:
If “I’m not allowed to use my preference” in reference to my saying I hate the phrase you use for Trump, please don’t mistake that for not being allowed to use your old nickname for him.
Although I do appreciate getting to read your comments again!
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@WaterGirl: exactly
but their cynical posturing & hectoring & rodentfornication in primary season & from the sidelines is a great way to suppress already weak turnout (as in 2010, when barryhussein needed to learn a lesson)
Eunicecycle
As I’ve said before, IANAL. But I read somewhere that what the SC said was since no one has been injured yet they couldn’t rule on it. Which I think is bull in many ways, as I feel just by reading it anyone with a brain can see there is so much room for abuse, especially how now everyone has “standing” and you can accuse anyone of anything without proof. So the defendant has to prove a negative.
lowtechcyclist
@Baud:
Did you fucking read it??? Sure comes across as forceful language to me.
WaterGirl
@Steeplejack: Uncertainty is very uncomfortable, especially when the stakes are so high. We just can’t know what is going to happen, and a long series of institutions over the past 4 years have let us down, so it’s understandable that no one has confidence that things are going to turn out okay.
But I’m sure not ready to conclude that all is lost.
I can’t tell from your comment whether you think Garland is saying “don’t worry, we’ve got this” but they don’t have it, or if you’re staying that Garland should be saying “don’t worry, we’ve got this”, but he isn’t saying it.
Steeplejack
@Ruckus:
Jesus, just go with “TFG” (the former guy), which is what everybody uses, and spare us all a l0t of confusion.
WaterGirl
@MontyTheClipArtMongoose: Representing their views here on BJ only helps spread their messages, which is why I wrote “who cares?”
bk
@MontyTheClipArtMongoose: piss off
trnc
@Baud:
IANACS*, but as long as Roe v Wade stands, isn’t any attempt before 24 weeks to intimidate a woman into not getting an abortion or to outright prevent it a civil rights violation subject to prosecution by the DOJ? While Texas may have successfully skirted judicial review with it’s private citizen enforcement scheme, private citizens can be sued under federal law for civil rights violations.
*Constitutional Scholar
Ruckus
@Baud:
@Baud:
I’d say tempers are running wild a bit. First this country might have elected one of the worst human beings, who has accomplished nothing good in his entire putrid life and said OK that’s the way it rolls and then he proceeded to fuck up everything he had anything to do with, and much he didn’t, including the supreme court. Second, his rise to the bottom empowered the TX legislature/governor to make an abomination into law and the supreme court, which TLG rendered into disaster (like everything else he touches) and it is once again left for the left to clean up the mess that is the vast majority of the conservative party in this country so that we can be an actual country and not an insane asylum with patients and attendants.
So yes, I’d say tempers are expected to be a bit hotter for a while longer.
Another Scott
@Eunicecycle:
The majority opinion was sophistry:
IOW: Yes the law might be unconstitutional, but since Texas wrote a
double-secret probationnovel statute, we can’t do anything yet. Sucks to be you. Maybe we’ll decide differently later; maybe not. We think it sucks to be you so much that we won’t even sign it.Grr…
Cheers,
Scott.
MomSense
@Baud:
I think the people who want a Democratic Trump are in denial. Those of us talking about the Supreme Court in 2016 had no sway with the progressive Twitterati. It didn’t interest the Bernistas one bit. Now all of a sudden they want Biden and Garland to do something. That was our job as voters and we blew it. Some of them have been so arrogant and condescending in the way they have discussed policy in the last two presidential election cycles and will never admit they fucked up when it comes to the courts.
Professor Bigfoot
@Steeplejack: I know in polite company it’s “the former guy,” but i always read it as “this fucking guy,” always in Joe Pesci’s voice.
WaterGirl
I think the country is primed for violence over this Texas law, and I see this as Garland trying to pour cold water on that before it starts for real.
Cognitive dissonance is painful. It’s hard to hope for better outcomes when we have collectively eaten so many shit sandwiches in the past few years. So I get why for some people it’s less painful to assume the worst.
But damn, Biden showed some really cojones with Afghanistan – he’s got a real spine and he has shown over and over again that he cares about doing what’s right.
Do we really want to fight with one another about hypotheticals related to whether this DOJ is going to suck on this issue? News bulletin: we can’t know in advance.
WaterGirl
@trnc: That is my take, as well.
schrodingers_cat
@Baud: Yes if by us you mean people of the Do Something Twitter and their echo chamber in the MSM and liberal blogs who think having elebenty Twitter followers is a political achievement for a law maker
They are petulant and mostly white.
Ruckus
@MontyTheClipArtMongoose:
Dude, I don’t know what kind of drugs you are on but they seem to be pretty damn strong.
I haven’t seen writing like yours since Timothy Leary was considered a god by a too large segment of the population. Get help, or at least a secure position that you can’t fall from.
schrodingers_cat
@MomSense: Cosign.
These are the same people who were bleating about drones and fell for Snowden and Greenwald when Obama was the President. Fell completely silent when the Orange Clown took power about the dronez.
James E Powell
@MomSense:
Agree completely and I always hasten to add 2000 into the mix.
Arguing the importance of the supreme court to Bernistas, as with the Naderites before them, not only failed to persuade, it made them angry. They’d respond as if we were insulting them with trivia when the real issues were Goldman Sachs speeches and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Ruckus
@WaterGirl:
People not reading my comments sort of nulls out having written them in the first place.
So I see it as use the moniker I invented for myself to use and have many people not read/pie me or not use it. I chose option B.
Eunicecycle
@MomSense: Amen! I was telling everyone who would listen “Supreme Court!” but they just couldn’t vote for Hillary.
Kay
I don’t understand why they issued the statement. Abortion is banned in Texas. The attorney general can’t do anything about it.
No provider in Texas is going to provide abortions when they’re banned under state law, whether or not that is a state enforcement mechanism. They’re not going to violate the law.
If anything this statement muddies the water and leads people to believe there’s some remedy, when there isn’t a remedy, barring a codification of Roe. If they want to “message”, it’s a really simple message- they banned abortions in Texas and now 25 other states will follow.
Steeplejack (phone)
@Professor Bigfoot:
I presume with appropriate pinkie-ring gesture.
lowtechcyclist
IANAL, but if the abortion clinics in Texas have shut their doors, I don’t see how this protects their facilities. If they’re not providing reproductive health services, then they’re not a facility providing reproductive health services. A mob tearing down a no-longer-operative abortion clinic wouldn’t be interfering with the seeking or providing of reproductive health services.
So my non-lawyerly guess is that this declaration is even more toothless than it looks.
Look, this is not about giving up hope. Giving up hope is not something I do, and I don’t recommend it for anyone else either. This is about not setting yourself up for disappointment by looking for hope in directions where you’re not going to find it.
Another Scott
@Kay:
The law applies to anyone “helping”.
RAICES Texas:
Cheers,
Scott.
zhena gogolia
@MomSense: Absolutely right.
burnspbesq
@lowtechcyclist:
Remind me again what law school your degree is from.
It may be a stretch, but the FACE act is the best tool Garland has, and I applaud him for making the threat. If the possibility of Federal indictment deters even one Texas vigilante while the merits of SB 8 get litigated, it was worth it.
WaterGirl
@Professor Bigfoot: I have never noticed your nym before. I like it!
Kay
@lowtechcyclist:
Hope is fine but the reality is they banned abortions in Texas. The attorney general can sue I suppose but there’s no abortion right to protect in Texas. It’s against the law.
schrodingers_cat
@zhena gogolia: They think
Making #hashtags trend on Twitter is activism.
#Abolish XYZ , # Defund ABC
Latest was Abolish the Senate
Ruckus
@Another Scott:
So even this supreme court majority thinks this law stinks enough that an actual review is in order, once the first person is actually affected by the law they just said might be OK?
Way to stake out a position supreme court.
Although I have to say that if no one is harmed by a law then OK. But failure to see how this law will harm many, many people is pretty slim pickings, given the process of this law and the history of the situation that the law supposedly addresses.
WaterGirl
@Kay: Are you suggesting that we just give up then? Because that’s what it sounds like you are saying.
Kay
@Another Scott:
It’s a fine and defiant statement but they need a provider, and no licensed provider is going to violate a state law banning abortion. If they’re going to help them get an abortion they better prepare for a long ride, because they aren’t getting one in Texas.
Mallard Filmore
@Professor Bigfoot:
Make it “That fucking guy” and I will be forever happy.
Another Scott
@Ruckus: The SCOTUS 5 seems to be saying their hands are tied. “You didn’t meet the burden, and oh this is really interesting! Wow, the state isn’t enforcing it, so there’s nobody to issue an injunction against!! Clever!!1 What can we do??”
They obviously want to satisfy the anti-Roe people, but they don’t want their bloody handprints on it – so they didn’t hear actual arguments nor sign it.
“Not my fault!”
It such cynical sophistry. And it’s worse that they think people will fall for it.
Grr…
Cheers,
Scott.
Matt McIrvin
@Baud:
If you have reason to believe someone is plotting to kill you, if they supported junior Klansmen marching around with tiki torches and decided to let a pandemic just burn in your neighborhood and like to make little funny jokes about dropping you out of a helicopter, having a civil debate and a vote over whether they should have control of the government is not a happy-making situation. It really erodes one’s faith in democracy.
Ruckus
@Professor Bigfoot:
Same take here.
Also I don’t see why there can only be one moniker for someone who is one of the worst human beings, who aspired to and achieved being the worst president ever, the only thing he’s ever set out to do and accomplished. Someone that distinguished in setting a goal and achieving it should be known far and wide and differing monikers showing his success at being the worst (a rather low bar, that he buried at least a foot lower) should be encouraged.
Kay
@WaterGirl:
I think the best thing the DOJ could do is explain that Texas banned abortions, because even the people on this blog don’t seem to understand that rather crucial fact.
I’m not blaming Garland. I just don’t see the point of pretending he can protect abortion rights in Texas when there are no abortion rights in Texas. We’re past the point of “messaging” here. Just tell people the truth. The only shot we have is political blowback to the Texas abortion ban. It doesn’t have to be hysterical or “hopeless”. It just is. The only question is what voters will do about it.
trnc
Does this mean you don’t believe the state law encourages civil rights violations that can be prosecuted by the DOJ? Abortions before 24 weeks are still constitutional.
Baud
@Matt McIrvin:
Then those people have officially become owned by the right and they are probably going to get what they feared most if the rest of us aren’t numerous enough to stop them on our own.
I am have no more sympathy for the political equivalent of antivaxxers than I do for actual antivaxxers.
Immanentize
The immediate problem is a law. No one has used the law and as far as I know, no one has violated the law.
So the only valid response is law.
I swear (mentioned above) Hoarse Whisperer and Elie Mystel were both — Why don’t the feds DO SOMETHING??
What? Send in the national guard? Invade Texas? Arrest the TX legislature?
And for the record — the Feds, writ large, did do something in the form of a US Supreme Court order.
But I see the same squawkers demand that some Democrat solve this problem now so that they can go back to complaining about other democrats doing other terrible things that they have no control over.
Law is the answer, regardless how much you admired Trump’s lawless ways.
ETA, Then again, Biden has probably not tried the alohamora spell.
MomSense
@James E Powell:
Some of those Naderites went on to complain about Citizens United. Yes Citizens United Never Timid was a travesty made possible by Bush W’s appointment of Alito and Roberts. So thanks Naderites, not just the voters but also all the people who pushed the lie there’s no difference between the parties.
WaterGirl
@Kay:
Really?
Ruckus
@Another Scott:
I believe we see the situation the same.
Let me put it in less polite english. The SC didn’t want to touch this POS law with a 100 ft pole because that would destroy their conservative bona fides with the regressive side of politics.
WaterGirl
@Ruckus:
That ship has already sailed.
Benw
@Baud: You’re not usually so definitive. I’m not even sure what a Dem TFG is?
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@Ruckus: metoprolol mostly
Immanentize
@MomSense: This.
Waves! ?♂️
Kay
@WaterGirl:
I don’t think “hope” has any role in this. It’s not a matter of my attitude toward the Texas law. The enforcement mechanism is a sneaky trick and carries all kinds of horrible potential as to other laws, but the basic fact doesn’t seem to be getting thru-they banned abortions in Texas. Garland can’t repeal the Texas law and providers will follow it, because they’re not criminals.
MomSense
@schrodingers_cat:
Trump escalated drone strikes and yet all of a sudden that issue went silent.
Immanentize
@WaterGirl: I agree. I was only half kidding when I said SCOTUS was ushering in the Age of the Assassins. Steve Vladek had a short thread on why the substance of the decision of SCOTUS was awful — but the way they did it was even worse for our country.
Losing an issue is part of the give and take of law and politics. But losing to an unreasoned narrow majority regarding an issue in a heavily gerrymandered state will undo us.
Baud
@Benw:
In this case it’s performative dick wagging followed by lawless and ultimately fruitless action of some sort.
Immanentize
@schrodingers_cat: And male — don’t forget male.
J R in WV
Folks can do what they want, but I put MontyMongoose in the pie filter a long time ago. What it’s for is inane bullshit like Monty’s spew.
I don’t think this law will apply much to TX SB8 so far, but at least the Feds are watching.
While most abortions are forbidden, from what news reports I have seen a very few patients are in time, before the fraudulent “fetal-heartbeat” generated by ultrasound units is present. Those abortions are continuing from the news reports I have seen, so there’s every chance a RWNJ will file a shit against one of those very early patients.
At six weeks an embryo is the size of a garden pea, so there are no heart valves to create a “fetal-heartbeat” — so the foundation of TX SB8 is a lie based upon crooked ultrasound units. But the Supremes don’t typically want to deal with truth/falsehood issues, esp when those issues interfere with their desires.
schrodingers_cat
@Immanentize: Yes that too.
Kay
@trnc:
They probably don’t want to challenge it because they’ll lose when they take it up. In any case, that IS something that I would leave to the DOJ, their approach. What they do when.
But they can’t do “messaging”. They won’t be good at it and we’re past the point of “messaging” anyway. Voters have a decision to make. Explain to them they must make a decision. If they want a right to choose they cannot elect Republicans.
laura
I’m hoping that the Texas women start some in your fucking face art pronto. Find out which law firms are trolling for potential bounty cases and start delivering used Kotex and Tampons. Abortion, miscarriage, period? Leave it to the legal system to figure it all out.
I’m sorry to see the fuss budgeting about the testicular fortitude of Merrick Garland’s statement and want more direct action because by design, this is a legal gordian knot and by design this should be called out in symbolic action that cuts to the chase. For fucks sake – it’s 2021 and the minority party is undoing (or planning to undo) the legal rights of women and girls and make vigilantism pay. Time to wave the bloody pad and call a fucker out whenever and wherever and however that doesn’t require waiting for the tender mercies of the elected and appointed.
Immanentize
@Ruckus: Snerk. His writing always reminds me of the Illuminatus Trilogy — but with added made-up catch phrases, nicknames, and unconnected clauses.
Feed your head
MomSense
@Immanentize:
Hey Imm!
I think there is a Misery life begins at conception law on deck so that is something to look forward to. That should put an end to RU-486.
Ruckus
@WaterGirl:
Not saying it hasn’t.
I’m saying that they seemed to think it would. That this is likely the best response that their minds could come up with without saying that the law is crap.
And in my limited knowledge of the law it may actually have been. They may even have wanted to strike it down, it was 5/4 but they are conservatives and abortion is a sin to them, at least open available abortion is, behind closed doors and unbeknown to the public it is likely fine or at least when considered necessary for maintaining one’s conservative standing, you know health and viability and all. But that’s not the conservative stance and they can’t say that and remain in good standing in the club, which is/seems far more important than the law.
Immanentize
@Kay: I think Garland’s statement might be directed at people seeking abortion services in neighboring states. My friends in San Antonio report people are already creating “militias” to prevent people from doing so. It may be trying to get ahead of that horror.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@MomSense: Claire McCaskill was just talking about that on the Nicolle Wallace program
DTTM
Following up on s-cat’s comments, I admit to hate reading a Times commenter, Karen Garcia, who writes a blog called “sardonicky” who writes scathingly about the Obamas constantly, uses words “neoliberal”, “oligarchy”, voted for Jill Stein, and was a little too sympathetic to the 6 January rioters.
Who are these people? Are there a lot of them? Where in the political spectrum is a “sardonicky”? Some input would be welcome. Thanks…
geg6
@Kay:
I do believe that is exactly what they are saying. And RAICES is saying we’re still going to help these women get abortions out-of-state even though we’re going to get sued for doing it. It’s not an unclear statement and they are right that TX will allow them to be sued. I’m not sure I get why you think they don’t know that’s exactly what is going to happen.
Immanentize
@MomSense: i have said this before, but if they make life begin at conception, they will be overturning about 50% of the basic law in property, contract, family law, trusts and estates, etc. Ask Kay!
The anti-choice zealots have not thought one step past pwning the libs
Steeplejack (phone)
@Ruckus:
You can have as many three-letter monikers as you want. Just don’t skip the minor detail of letting people know what they mean! It’s all about communication, right?
Baud
@Immanentize:
That makes sense.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@DTTM:
in absolute terms, no, but 2000 and 2016 suggest there are enough of them to really fuck with the country
MomSense
@Immanentize:
Its also a problem that they don’t actually understand conception.
Baud
@MomSense:
They just can’t conceive of it.
lowtechcyclist
@Immanentize:
I’d been wondering if that was where your nym was from. “A fairy tale for paranoids!”
MomSense
@Baud:
?
Immanentize
@MomSense: That is because of tales of a virgin birth, no doubt.
geg6
@Kay:
WTF are you talking about? What an asinine, condescending, bullshit thing to say.
MomSense
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I love Claire.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Baud: InconCEIVable! /Vizzini
Immanentize
@lowtechcyclist: No, although my nym does get a lot of play in the book — I actually took it from the Catholic version/meaning of the phrase which basically means “make heaven on earth” not “bring on the apocalypse”
WaterGirl
@Kay: I am having trouble following in your comment #99.
Who is “they” in that comment? Is it all the same they, or are you referencing different entities using they?
Doug R
@WaterGirl: Yeah, 123,000 evacuated in 2 weeks and 200 million shots in 100 days-Biden’s shown some skill.
regularguy
@Mallard Filmore:
Yup “That fucking guy” is what “TFG” means to me
Ruckus
@Steeplejack (phone):
This is the 21st century. We are supposed to be somewhat educated and savvy, make something up or ignore it.
I did exactly what you said, I made up monikers. Others didn’t know the code and asked. I answered and they didn’t like what I answered. Which is why I used the moniker in the first place. This isn’t a Rhodes Scholar debate, it’s a blog.
Hell it’s a blog with a pie filter. You don’t like my wit and charm, pie me. I won’t mind and I won’t know. And you won’t have to make up rules about how I’m supposed to think and write.
Which I very, very likely won’t follow anyway.
Immanentize
@MomSense: You know that is my favorite hypothetical for students:
Life by law in a state begins at conception. A building is on fire. On the left side is a fertility clinic with thousands of fertilized eggs. On the right side is a couple of apartments and a small child is yelling out the window “Fire! help! Save me.!!” Which way must a fireman turn?
Ruckus
@MomSense:
I don’t recall, was conception explained in the Bible?
SiubhanDuinne
@MomSense:
I do too, now. Wasn’t always a big fan, but since she lost her Senate seat she’s gone all NMFTG* and I love the segments when she’s on with Nicolle or Joy.
*For Steeplejack: No More Fucks To Give :-)
WaterGirl
@Immanentize: I want to know what the answers are!
Baud
@Immanentize:
Which set of parents are richer?
Immanentize
@Baud: or, who is better insured, the lab or the kid?
Baud
@Immanentize:
The real tragedy is the loss of the building.
Immanentize
@WaterGirl: There are no answers, only more questions. ☸️
SiubhanDuinne
@Ruckus:
I didn’t know the code. I asked. You answered. You have no idea whether or not I liked what you answered because I never said a word about it one way or the other.
Another Scott
@Immanentize: Good one.
Another good one: IVF fertility treatments are almost never a case of fertilize-one-egg and see-what-happens.
Harpers:
Shock, shocking.
Why, it’s almost as if something else is behind the anti-abortion movement…
Cheers,
Scott.
Immanentize
Well, Michael K. Williams died.
Travel well, Omar.
debbie
@Immanentize:
Also science.
Immanentize
@Baud: Thank god it wasn’t looted!!!
debbie
@MomSense:
They also don’t understand viability.
lowtechcyclist
@Kay:
@Kay:
I think we’re on the same page here: tell the truth, don’t sugarcoat it, don’t pretend we’ve got remedies that we don’t.
This really does come down to the people, and not just as voters. The importance of discouraging mobs has come up in this thread, but I haven’t heard a word about protests outside the state capitol in Austin, and I’m kinda gobsmacked by that. Where’s the outrage from our side?? Twitter isn’t where it needs to be right now.
Woodrow/asim
A reminder that, if you want to help Texas groups who are on the ground working on this issue, like RAICES, I posted this set of links a few days ago.
That might be worth putting some energy into.
schrodingers_cat
OT: My cousin is getting married in India this December, she is my favorite aunt’s daughter. I am in two minds. What should I do?
Ruckus
@SiubhanDuinne:
I should have been more specific in this case. SOME didn’t like my answers.
Sorry. I’ll try to do better.
Baud
@lowtechcyclist:
https://www.fox7austin.com/news/pro-choice-advocates-protest-abortion-law-at-texas-capitol
debbie
@Immanentize:
?
Woodrow/asim
@Immanentize: No doubt.
He did one of those retrospectives for, I think, Vanity Fair? It was fascinating, his life and how he loved acting, the craft. He was great in that GHOSTBUSTERS remake, even if my Partner was confused why I kept calling him Omar :)
We were just talking about THE WIRE, last night, as recommended watching. And that goes ten times as much, today.
Baud
@schrodingers_cat:
About going?
Another Scott
@Immanentize:
Continuing fire department analogy day:
Cheers,
Scott.
Raven
Oops
Baud
@Another Scott:
That’s just wrong. We can’t impose fake jobs on the government in order to be disappointed by them.
debbie
@Woodrow/asim:
I thought he was great in The Road.
Mike E
Are we fighting over AOC again??
Another Scott
@lowtechcyclist: There were protests at the Austin capitol the day it took effect (September 1).
Warning autoplay video – KVUE.
Cheers,
Scott.
schrodingers_cat
@Baud: Yes.
Immanentize
@Another Scott: He has lost his mind about the DO SOMETHING, GARLAND, YOU’RE MY ONLY HOPE!
He is not a lawyer and his playing one on Twitter is reaching beyond his acting range.
Woodrow/asim
OK — I know what I just said, yet: I posted on this yesterday — there was a Twitter post from a Pro-Choice activist who pointed out that they are, and rightly so, exhausted as fuck. That a lot of them needed to take the weekend to absorb and manage, and figure out direction.
If the Democratic Leadership is taking the same tack, and letting those folx figure out how to direct? That’s a damned good thing, in my book. There are efforts, like the protest @Baud just posted, yet I’d not expect major work on this for a few days.
The people who’ve been working this beat, have been doing it for decades in a lot of cases, gang. And this was a shock to, I think, damn near everyone, no matter the side – I and others noted there’s not a lot of chatter on the antiabortion side, either.
My recommendation? Let’s be of support, not so much judgement, to a lot of people at this time.
debbie
@schrodingers_cat:
When do you have to decide by?
Immanentize
@debbie: And was an outspoken fan/supporter of DMX. Both dead, now.
Another Scott
@Immanentize: Yup, he’s way out over his skis here, I think.
Cheers,
Scott.
lowtechcyclist
@Ruckus:
Since you brought up the Bible, let’s talk about a passage in the fifth chapter of Numbers which @SlacktivistFred pointed out the other day.
TL;DR version: if a married woman gets impregnated by another man, the Lord will force her to miscarry. IOW, God Himself would have been in violation of this Texas law.
Of course, that probably doesn’t bother the anti-abortion folks because their real point is to deny agency to women.
frosty
I’m finally going to do the same.
Baud
@schrodingers_cat:
Tough. You have to have a negative test to get back to the US. Do you think the wedding will be distanced?
lowtechcyclist
@Another Scott:
Hadn’t heard anything about it, but news coverage is what it is. (The big boys in the business still can’t let go of Afghanistan.) Thanks for filling me in.
J R in WV
@Immanentize:
Found dead in his Brooklyn penthouse. At least he lived large since becoming a star! A shame… so young.
debbie
@Another Scott:
Maybe I’ve misread Garland’s statement, but it seems he’s putting down a marker preventing violence by the Talibangelicals (am I still allowed to say that?) who will wield whatever weapons their furious righteousness demands. As someone said above, they’re forming militias to do god knows what to women traveling to other states.
I don’t think his statement is nothing, but there’s not much more he can do at this point. I can’t imagine he or the Biden administration is closely watching all of this and will take whatever action they can, when they can.
schrodingers_cat
@Baud: There are strict limits on the # of guests, I think 50 is the maximum allowed.
@debbie:I will have to decide soon, tickets to go in December can get pricy.
Another Scott
@schrodingers_cat: To the extent that one can trust any country’s numbers, and recognizing that country numbers are highly lumpy (look at the variation in the USA), India’s numbers look much better now than they did in April – June. Nobody knows what will happen in December, but it looks like India’s numbers were generally low last winter.
If you’re able to be careful, and maybe get a booster before you leave, you might be reasonably safe. But it probably depends on the unique circumstances there (indoors/out, vaccination rates there, any new variant spreading, etc.)…
Good luck with your decision!
Cheers,
Scott.
Another Scott
@debbie: Hoarse wants Garland soaking up the airwaves the way Barr did, trying to shape public opinion, and dominating the news reporting.
He doesn’t seem to understand that that’s not Garland’s job, even if Barr thought it was his.
(sigh)
Cheers,
Scott.
WaterGirl
@schrodingers_cat: If you feel you have to decide soon, then I’m afraid you are going to have to make your decision without having good enough information to make an informed decision.
You could get refundable tickets, and hedge your bets that way.
schrodingers_cat
@Another Scott: Isn’t he a marketing person and not a lawyer?
debbie
@Another Scott:
This tit for tat shit has got to end.
Mallard Filmore
@MomSense:
There are some women with weak hearts. My college room-mate married one. Pregnancy is a death sentence by six months.
The feared death panels have moved out of hospital administrative offices and into the legislatures.
Bart
Off topic, but there isn’t an open thread: RIP Michael K. Williams. https://deadline.com/2021/09/michael-k-williams-dead-age-54-the-wire-lovecraft-country-dies-at-age-54-1234827926/
M31
@Mallard Filmore: TFG will always be Toad-penised Fart-huffing Goon to me
Another Scott
@schrodingers_cat: Yes.
That’s the beauty of Twitter, isn’t it??
Cheers,
Scott.
debbie
@MomSense:
I’d like to see a bill introduced by TX Democrats criminalizing those men who impregnated the women who felt the need to get an abortion.
Another Scott
In other news, Ohio judge reverses ruling forcing hospital to give Ivermectin to COVID-19 patient.
(via nycsouthpaw)
Cheers,
Scott.
schrodingers_cat
@Another Scott: Indeed where else will you find Nate Silver imparting wisdom to epidemiologists and a marketing person giving advice to the nation’s topmost prosecutor. What is the opposite of imposter syndrome?
When you are utterly confident about stuff that you are not an expert at?
Ksmiami
@Immanentize: between this, rising fascism, Covid and AGW, I put the odds of the US holding together as a functional country at 5-15 percent. The US is over, we just don’t know it yet
J R in WV
@M31:
To quote the great George Takei (not really a quote on this topic, but I love it anyways) “Ohh, Myyyy!” The best implementation of TFG so far!
Westyny
@MontyTheClipArtMongoose:
@MontyTheClipArtMongoose: I think the term is Democratic Party.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@MomSense:
@James E Powell:
@Eunicecycle:
I need to point out that even if Hillary had won in 2016, the Texas decision still would’ve been 4-3. Scalia’s seat would’ve likely remained vacant given the Senate and historical voting patterns for midterms for the president’e party. Maybe Kennedy would’ve stayed on, maybe not. Then maybe it would’ve been 3-3.
SiubhanDuinne
@debbie:
It’s not unheard of for married* women, pregnant by their own husbands, to seek abortions for any number of reasons.
*ETA: Too narrow. I should broaden it to include women in relationships of choice, regardless of marital status.
schrodingers_cat
@Ksmiami: Some historical perspective is in order, this country survived a Civil War.
Another Scott
@Ksmiami:
That high?? You surprise me.
Cheers,
Scott.
SiubhanDuinne
@Ksmiami:
I don’t think I can handle any more cheerfulness and optimism today.
piratedan
It seems that we have a bunch of folk on the left that want a grand gesture from the DOJ… say like declaring the GOP a domestic terrorist organization and starting to arrest people accordingly. And while that would neatly bypass the SCOTUS, I don’t expect that to be the option taken.
The GOP wants to die on this hill electorially, the rest of us have to make sure that they do.
patrick II
Justice Sotomayor pretty vehemently disagreed with those who think the Supreme Court didn’t have standing.
Couldn’t agree with Steve Vladek more, as important as a women’s right to choose is, this law is more pernicious than just its attack on abortion rights.
And finally, because of voter disenfranchisement, purposeful hyper-partisanship even in accepting death from preventable disease, and a Supreme Court majority filled with confederate brigands, Republicans in Texas feel that this is a play that could help with their re-election, not make them unelectable forever as should be the case. Not a good omen.
schrodingers_cat
@SiubhanDuinne: Doom posters make a good buck on Patreon. St Sarah Doomzior is a good example.
WaterGirl
@Westyny: Democrat vs Democratic – telling, isn’t it?
Renie
I’m not sure I understand this law. If a women leaves Texas to get an abortion, the Texas law still applies even though the procedure takes place in another state? or does it apply only to abortions done in Texas? Did they write this law so they can go after women in other states who aren’t even residents of Texas? How can a state law be applicable in another state? What am I missing here?
zhena gogolia
@WaterGirl: I thought it was a spoof.
SiubhanDuinne
@schrodingers_cat:
Sorry, I must be awfully slow today, but who is St Sarah Doomzior please? I did Google, but to no avail.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@SiubhanDuinne:
Sarah Kendzior (sp?)
sab
@Ruckus: It would help if you yourself would stick to one monuker. Last week was SFB.
Also too, when did Garland work for Trump? That is what confused me. He was a federal judge in DC before Biden appointed him AG. Federal judges don’t work for the Executive branch.
Another Scott
@Renie: The SB8 law is a garbage fire and clearly unconstitutional.
They define a bunch of garbage, like pregnancy begins with fertilization, and proceed from there.
Since anyone in Texas who “aids or abets” an abortion can be sued, whether it happens outside of the state probably doesn’t matter if the law stands.
Grr…
Cheers,
Scott.
SiubhanDuinne
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):
Oh, thanks. I think I’ve heard her name, but no idea why.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@SiubhanDuinne:
Don’t mention it. IIRC, she’s a journalist who’s written a lot about authoritarianism, specifically about Putin’s Russia. She came to prominence due to Russiagate. Probably why you’ve heard her name before : )
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Another Scott:
Here’s a dark thought, but given how prevalent COVID is atm, what would happen to such a case if the plaintiffs were put on a ventilator or even died from COVID?
SiubhanDuinne
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):
i just looked her up, and I’m sure that’s why. Probably right here on this very blog :-)
pat
Does anyone know what this “six weeks” refers to? As I understand it, ovulation takes place about 2 weeks after the beginning of the last period, and that would be the time of fertilization. So 6 weeks is two months after the beginning of the last period? So how exactly is this measured?
Another question… does no one take birth control pills? Are they too expensive?
satby
Very obviously. Our authoritarians are trustworthy, theirs are evildoers.
Kent
I think they can only apply it to actions that happen within Texas. So a Texas activist or family member who buys a plane ticket to Denver or someone who drives a family member across the state of Texas to New Mexico.
But frankly those are fringe cases. What they are really trying to do is drive abortion out of the state of Texas, and this law, if implemented as intended, will do that. It is really only the affluent who are going to fly out of state to get abortions.
debbie
satby
@pat: This law counts six weeks after the start of the last period.
pat
@satby:
That is absolutely nuts.
The “baby” is nothing but a blastocyst at that time.
I hate these people.
pat
@pat:
So when your period is two weeks late, head for the nearest abortion clinic.
Absolutely nuts.
Ksmiami
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): I think we should ensure that this happens. But even before that, this is Texas – guns all around
Mallard Filmore
@pat:
Human females of child bearing age are ALWAYS fertile. Two weeks plus or minus is only a wild guess.
Westyny
@WaterGirl: a reliable giveaway . . .
sab
@Mallard Filmore: I knew someone like that who died a week after her baby was born. Her sister has the same heart defect.
My heart couldn’t handle birth cintrol pills.
But the law does have an exception for life of the mother. So she just has to find a doctor willing to decide it’s worth the cost of the lawsuit to sign off on it. As a woman whose life is on the line I would prefer to have a little more input in the decision.
And as Kay says, the clinics will be gone in any case.
Westyny
@zhena gogolia: could have been a lot clear and still have retained the snark.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@pat:
@satby:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the way the law is written, can’t women who have miscarriages also be harassed? Basically, they have to prove a negative. This is fucking horrible
satby
@pat: yes, I know, but the forced birthers have for years made it seem like microscopic fully formed humans is what’s being discussed. There is no “heart” for this “fetal heartbeat” law, it’s just electric cells, a heart hasn’t even formed yet. The people pushing these laws know that, their brainwashed followers don’t. This law is specifically targeted at the potential end run around it of getting RU 486 morning after pills to induce medical abortions. And to prevent the kinds of underground actions we who came of age before abortion was legal remember.
Ruckus
@sab:
I’ve given up on monikers because I have been informed that I have to define them every time I use them, which seems to lessen the concept of monikers in the end.
Garland was in a federal judgeship, as you know, so for many people that meant he worked for the last guy. The number of people who have no idea how the government works is obviously much higher than those that do, or will even read up to find the answer..
Gin & Tonic
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): She was a specialist on Uzbekistan, and actually quite knowledgeable. Did her dissertation on the Uzbek opposition movement. Her writing on US politics tends toward the alarmist.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Ksmiami:
Umm. You might want to walk that back dude
Steeplejack (phone)
@zhena gogolia:
Yes. Monty plays at spoof-trollery but is often so inconherent you can’t tell what he means.
satby
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): Of course. We all know those pregnant sluts will lie about having a miscarrage. Righteous women are proud to be host bodies for the unborn.
sab
@pat: Not everyone can safely take birth control pills. Back in the day they blew up my blood pressure and endangered my heart. What they do is mimic pregnancy, The more recent versions aren’t as strong, but that also means they sometimes don’t work.
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
@Professor Bigfoot: Me too!
WaterGirl
@satby: I predict that sales of pregnancy tests drop to near zero in Texas. You would have to have family or friends mail them to you.
No matter who you are there is surely someone who would try to make their 10k off of you.
As soon as the Rs start suing, I think we have to sue everyone in sight so they experience the horror of this, too. No more fighting with one hand behind our backs. Not on this one, anyway.
Major Major Major Major
WaPo had an oped the other day advocating using some anti-KKK law to prosecute the Texas ‘bounty hunters’, by Larry Tribe who’s gone a bit nutty but I thought it was interesting.
This, by contrast, appears to do nothing
Edit: I think I did also read a Popehat thread saying that this law declares itself immune to Texas’s anti-SLAPP provision, so combined with the legal fees aspect you could really just sue everybody in the state and jam everything up pretty bad? IANAL
Major Major Major Major
@Ksmiami:
Literally only one of those things is specific to the US, so I assume your analysis holds for all nations? Nobody ever talks this way about like france, which sees regular violent riots and a routine second-place fascist finisher for prez
WaterGirl
@Major Major Major Major: That’s one of our new doomsayers.
satby
@WaterGirl: Back when you could get jailed for aiding in an abortion, pre-Roe, there were underground networks of women who helped other women get safe abortions. We’re going back to those days in Texas.
Major Major Major Major
@WaterGirl: oh they’re not new
SiubhanDuinne
I never considered myself part of an underground network, but in a small way I guess I was. When I lived in Florida in the late ‘60s/early ‘70s, I accompanied two different women friends, on two separate occasions, to NYC for their abortions, waited while they had the procedure, and then we spent the night with supportive friends I had known when I lived in Manhattan.
Anomalous Cowherd
@schrodingers_cat: #177:
Dunning-Krueger syndrome.
J R in WV
@pat:
I’m not sure why everyone is talking about “6 weeks” — I’m pretty sure the bill makes termination of a pregnancy after the detection of “fetal heartbeat”, which is another falsehood right there, at six weeks those are generated by the ultrasound devices to make future mommy happy.
There is no heart in a 6-week embryo, there are no heart valves to make a heart beat sound.
A 6-week embryo is the size of a pea!
This is a stack of lies!
WaterGirl
@J R in WV: Yep. They started with lies as if they were facts, and then built the law on that.
Appalling.
Geminid
@schrodingers_cat: Stay. Sometimes you have to love somebody from a distance. You can tell her that, and hopefully she’ll understand.
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@J R in WV: you’ll not see this, but thank you
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@frosty: raising a drink to you
MontyTheClipArtMongoose
@Westyny: big if true
Another Scott
I don’t like how this story ends… :-(
(sigh)
Cheers,
Scott.
Another Scott
Bobby Lee statue in Richmond, VA is (finally!) coming down this Wednesday.
Good, good.
Cheers,
Scott.
prostratedragon
Remarks from Wendell Pierce on the death of Michael K. Williams.
Three Omar and Bunk scenes.
Bunk and Omar I: Their meeting. “Parrish know how to bring it out of people, don’t he?”
Bunk and Omar II: “Calling your name, glorifying your ass.”
Bunk and Omar III: “Man gotta live what he know, right?”
Another Scott
First rule of Legal Twitter – do not argue with BadLegalTakes.
Second rule – don’t double-down.
:-/
Cheers,
Scott.
James E Powell
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):
I need to point out that no one has any idea what would have happened if Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016.
James E Powell
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):
Sarah Kendzior got her first cable gigs because Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan’s dictator since the fall of CCCP, died. She was the only person around who had the expertise to talk about it. She was a great cable guest until she started telling the truth about Trump, after which she was promptly banned. Can’t have truth about Republicans on cable shows.
People disparage her because she is hyperbolic & emphasizes the dangers, but she’s been pretty accurate in describing Trump, his family, his coterie, and his behavior
ETA – What @Gin & Tonic: said.
Chris Johnson
@frosty:
There is no legitimate reason to EVER say ‘listen, this is what Chapo Trap House has to say about it’. They are the most obvious bad actors I’ve ever seen, barring maybe Jimmy Dore, and it is so excruciatingly obvious that they’re the left-wing shills for Russian trollage that anybody at this stage even bringing them up is either complicit or impossibly stupid.
Kay
I guess the thing to do would be run a very strong Democrat in Texas for governor and really commit to beating them. That’s the fight and it’s not really a matter of my or anyone else’s hopefulness or lack thereof, there’s no brilliant legal strategy where the AG of the United States can fix it. I don’t know anything about Texas but I assume there’s some set of circumstances where a Democrat could win.
I’m just baffled by the idea that if we all had better attitudes or something that would do it. It’s just not relevant to the specific problem here. I don’t think that’s “doomsaying” I think it’s reality. What are we “hoping” happens? If you said to me “are you hopeful for the Texas governors race?” I can answer that, but am I hopeful some general “will to win” or “if you can dream it you can do it” will cause something or other to happen and the reverse will doom any effort? Well, no. I don’t really believe in that stuff. To me it starts to be like “affirmations” or something and frankly that’s a little woo woo for my temperament.
Groucho48
Wonder if this was the inspiration for the law?