The Frankish Reich

And remember: many of these supporters (Ashli Babbitt was one notable example) were full-on, all-in, 100% QAnon adherents. To them, this was it ... The Storm they were promised.

Exactly. There was one target on Jan 6, and one target only: Mike Pence. Trump was following the John Eastman script where Pence would refuse to certify the electoral slate from certain states. Pence wasn't going to do it, unless .... unless he legitimately feared for his life or safety, both on Jan 6 and later. It was a desperation move, but that was the plan. Oh, there was another plan too: shut down the counting of the votes and the certification of the election by storming the Capitol. That might just delay things long enough for Pence to accept an offer he couldn't refuse. And yes, the senile and moronic (sometimes both at the same time!) advisors actually thought this could work.

No cross examination!! Where’s Congressman Jim Jordan and his exquisite cross examination skills? Oh. I forgot. The Repubs FORFEITED THEIR RIGHT to have their people on the committee.

I dunno. A lot of the prior “bombshells” turned out to be duds. But this one is likely to stick. Just as Trump’s nicknames for his opponents (remember “Low Energy” Jeb?) stuck because there was a kernel of truth there. Temper tantrum baby Donnie works, just like that parade balloon caricature works. They fit our perceptions. That’s the political front. On the legal front, something important happened today. We learned that Trump knew (or as lawyers would say, had reason to believe) that his rally crowd had stuff with them that couldn’t make it through a metal detector. Let’s call this stuff “weapons.” And that he nevertheless directed them to go TO THE CAPITOL (his yelling, not mine). It’s slow, it’s methodical, it’s effective in the manner of a grand jury presentation. Will Trump be charged? Who knows. I like the GA election interference charge better. That one is pretty compelling.

Agreed. How does this devolve into talk about student loan forgiveness? Reasonable minds may differ. I believe the value of personal autonomy trumps the value of a “potential life” until the earliest possible date of viability outside the womb. The right is to not be forced to be pregnant. It isn’t a right to destroy the fetus/baby. And I do believe that the constitution protects such personal autonomy.

Mods (well, if we had them)—please merge this into the Q Analysis Redux thread.

To jump in uninvited here … … I was raised in the Catholic Church, went to Catholic schools, and sent my kids to Catholic schools. I consider myself a Catholic now, although I suppose the more doctrinaire bishops would disagree and call me a cultural Catholic rather than a real member of the faith community. Whatever. Are people really familiar with the Catholic Church’s positions on these “life” issues? They’ve got the abortion part down, but, for example, I’ve known many Catholic parents of in vitro fertilization (often multiple) births. And nobody is refusing them communion. Despite this: https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology The Catholic Church position is consistent (life begins at birth), but extreme (even things that don’t terminate a potential life are morally wrong - see above) and sometimes, well, you tell me: https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-*****-is-wrong Maybe they should have a separate section set aside for all the wankers so they can’t get communion?

Same here. I was convinced in my little kid way that Dennis Shaw and Marlin Briscoe were the best QB-WR combo in the whole wide world. I didn’t know anything about the whole black QB controversy. He was just …. The Man. RIP.

I always find it instructive to flip the script to see what the other side of a debate will/won’t concede. I’ve mentioned this before. Imagine a wave of (pseudo) scientists win political control of a small state. They pass a eugenics law akin to Buck v Bell - the “two generations of imbeciles are enough” mandatory sterilization case. Now point me to the clause in the constitution or its amendments that says a state can’t do that. Good luck. The great jurist (and I don’t use that term lightly) Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that “two generation” line in finding that the state had a strong interest in improving its genetic stick and that nothing in the constitution prevented it from enacting a mandatory sterilization law. A later case - Skinner - kind of qualified what states can and cannot do in this area, but it was an equal protection case: Oklahoma sterilized “habitual criminals” but excluded white collar criminals. So it failed on those grounds. So if you believe that a state cannot involuntarily sterilize you (because, say, you already have 2 kids and the state finds that each additional child will contribute to climate change), what’s to stop it? An unenumerated right, perhaps? A right to personal autonomy? Shall we dub it a … right to PRIVACY?

I love the poorly educated.

That’s kind of where we were headed if the Court had 3 more John Roberts clones instead of 3 Robert Bork clones.

I wouldn't be that dismissive of it. It's a real problem for a lot of people. But there's a point here too -- we've had relatively cheap gas for a long time, and that has made a lot of people make lifestyle decisions based on the assumption that cheap gas will be here forever. I have an in-law who's now an empty nester. He used to have a giant Ford Explorer XL (the extended size!) for all those kids going to school and practice things. It finally gave out. He replaced it with ... the largest Explorer they currently sell. For a family (at home) of 2. He complains about gas prices. A lot. And I work with people who bought houses over the last couple years that were over an hour's commute away in pre-COVID traffic. Those houses are now over an hour's commute away in semi-post-COVID traffic. I get why they did it -- cheaper housing, cheaper land. But people very quickly adapt to facts on the ground, and assume that the status quo today will be the status quo forever. So ... yeah, sometimes we need to adapt. And to plan ahead.

I did? No. I suggested you pay a visit to the deepest recesses of LA's sprawl to get TheRealDerangedRhino's expert opinion! And no, DR's Ghost cannot be the real DR, since DR was much, much more excitable when you hit a nerve.

Exactly. And that's why arguing from propositions like "A fetus is a human life, therefore abortion is murder" doesn't stick. I respect people who believe abortion is wrong. And I agree that abortions after a certain stage of development (certainly viability) are wrong. But almost no one finds a very early term abortion to be the moral equivalent of the killing of a newborn infant. They are not the same thing, and even the most strident opponents of legal abortion concede that by proposing different treatment of a woman who has an abortion vs. a woman who kills her baby.

Or maybe sometimes they just don't want their marriages annulled by Republican-appointed judges? https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/ The contraceptive ban thing is, thankfully, a nonstarter. No state legislature is about to do that. But same-sex marriage? The question is not if certain states will try banning it, but rather (1) which states; and (2) when. I say Alabama, and this year.

They shouldn't. Not under the reasoning of Dobbs. I'm not aware of any U.S. constitutional hook you could hang that on. A federal law protecting abortion rights in all 50 states? A closer call, because Congress has used (and the Supreme Court has upheld, over and over again) the use of the commerce clause for the protection of individual rights. Too much to explain here, but this does a pretty good job if you've got the time to dig in: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/public_education/insights/Insights14-2.pdf Of course, the use of the commerce clause for such expansions of federal power is also under attack, so it's also possible that this Supreme Court would shoot that down. But that would have extreme repercussions, taking the Civil Rights Act down with it. Hey, all of this uncertainty (guns, state money to students attending religious-based schools, abortion laws) is a Full Employment Act for Lawyers, for which I should be thankful ...

The Supreme Court just decided that the constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority over state laws concerning abortion. So, congratulations anti-abortion rights legal advocates. You have successfully returned decisions over whether, when, and in what manner abortions will be permitted in the 50 states. It's none of the federal government's business, right? The constitution lets the people of each state decide. Oh, wait a minute ... now Senators WANT the federal government to butt in, but on the opposite side, to suddenly claim federal authority over something they just argued was committed to the people of the 50 states. So ... all that "limited federal powers" stuff Alito crowed about for 70 pages or whatever? Yeah, it's ok to ignore that now and to call for a federal law banning abortions in all states.

Let's say you mistakenly ***** into a fertile woman, and you immediately throw her in a very hot chlorinated spa to try to nip the potential life in the bud. Have you committed murder? Stupid analogies will always be with us, on both sides.

You're right - that's straight from ... the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, which, if you care to use it as an interpretative source for the CONSTITUTION, may suggest (rather more strongly, I'd say) that the "liberty" interest prevails over the "potential" life interest.

I forgot about that - Ron Watkins, Candidate.

I guess that's why abortion rights activists call if pro-choice.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-creator-q-returns-after-nearly-two-year-hiatus?scrolla=5eb6d68b7fedc32c19ef33b4 Now if only there were someone here who could help me decipher this ... Somewhere in a garden level apartment in Pacoima perhaps?

All good points, but I would go a bit further - why do we always fall back on "endangers her life?" What if there's no threat to her life, but what if she has severe morning sickness? I looked it up because, well, I'm not a woman: it typically begins at 6 weeks, is at its worst at 9 weeks, and can continue a few weeks beyond that. So we tell women: "You are required to undergo 6 weeks of misery even though a simple procedure could restore you to full health and happiness almost immediately." I don't see how the existence of a mere potential for a human life more than half a year later can outweigh the woman's interest in her own health and happiness.

Excellent point. It was all so easy for the Republicans when Roe v. Wade offered them protection. Sure, we're pro-life, but its those other partial birth/free abortions for all liberals that are the real extremists. It won't work now. Candidates on the national level will have to answer real questions: do you support a complete and total ban on all abortions? On morning after pill "abortions?" On in vitro fertilization in which 8 eggs are fertilized, one or two are implanted, and the rest disposed of? The old talking points won't work anymore.

You need to spend some more time with cats.