Just to repeat:
WE ARE NOT *-AFTER-* COVID.
COVID is everywhere and will be until we actually effectively deal with it.
With what we know about people, we will not solve the pandemic. It will be with us indefinitely.
Beau wants Biden to be the answer. The choice he made was as bad as Trumps decision. Biden chose the economy over people. The right answer was to change the economy. Change how business is done.
Biden is done. Trump is a a grave danger. We need better
@joeinwynnewood @professorhank #COVID
Excellent question. How would you change society to make disease transmission dramatically less?
We've seen pieces of this with work from home, delivery services. Dramatically improved ventilation and other tech.
It requires giving up things companies don't want to give up. Remote workers are more efficient (most often - not all). But managers really want to be eyes on on employees.
What else can we do?
The administration certainly could promulgate indoor air quality rules that would require cleaner indoor air, though that would take many months to put in place, and I expect would be blocked by a Trump judge in short order. With Chevron deference overturned, there's near zero chance such a rule would survive.
Office vs. remote work is entirely out of the purview of the federal government.
The CDC could certainly do better in ...
@joeinwynnewood @professorhank
With SCOTUS destroying the Constitution, task 1 in combatting the virus is to remove the felonious six. They violated 14 3. So they are no longer Justices and can never hold any office again.
But getting there requires the President to declare that and eject them, then send 6 new nominations to the Senate, and have the Senate confirm them. Currently that is all but impossible.
....
@samohTmaS
Yes, well, as much as that's a wonderful vision, I'm pretty sure you're not going to get any judge to agree with the proposition that they violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
While it would be great for President Biden to come out with a full-throated support for major court reform, it's still not in his bailiwick to reform court.
For that we will require a Democratic trifecta come January. Certainly a worthy goal for all of us to diligently work towards.
@joeinwynnewood @professorhank
It specifically does NOT require any judge to agree. It requires only reading the plain text of the Constitution, the action of the President, and the Senate confirming replacements.
ALL NINE Justices violated 14 3 in aiding and abetting an insurrectionist (Trump) in Colorado v. US. 6 of 9 violated it again in Trump v. US on immunity.
The Pres. controls Treasury hence funding. And per #SCOTUS has unreviewable power.
Take them up on that. Throw them out.
@samohTmaS
that's not what their votes said, though.
You're saying something factually incorrect and talking about punishing justices for things they didn't do.
THAT's the real problem with your theory.
No I am not.
#SCOTUS voted that Trump - an insurrectionist under the 14th and so adjudicated was not removable because (created out of whole cloth) the Congress hadn't created rules. 14 3 is self enforcing. In aiding and abetting Trump who sought that outcome, they too violated 14 3.
In rewriting the Constitution to aid said insurrectionist to find an immunity he (the President) does not have, they violated it again.
You are misreading the #Constitution.
Here's the ruling. Again, that's not what the court ruled.
What it said was merely that a state can't rule on federal law without some sort of federal permission, or federal process, or something on the federal level.
The tail can't wag the dog.
Whether or not 14 3 is self-enforcing is irrelevant because it's a federal, not state, question.
It was handled in the wrong court.
@volkris
"Whether or not the 14th is self enforcing". Listen to yourself.
The 50 States are 50 sovereigns, co-equal with and under the #Constitution.
And in the end it does NOT matter what you or I argue or believe. This #SCOTUS gave the #President enormous power under the #Constitution.
Power so great that he does get to say these things and make them stick.
And yes, he has the Federal Police and the Military, along with the power of the control of the purse, and prosecution to enforce it.
Under their heinous decision, he could without review -kill- them.
That's the opposite of what SCOTUS said in their opinion.
Read Justice Sotomayor's dissent.
It is absolutely what Roberts and his radical cronies did. They gutted the Constitution and created a Presidential immunity out of whole cloth contrary to everything we know about the deliberations by the founders and their intents. And in plain contravention of the Constitution itself.
@samohTmaS yep, the 50 states are 50 sovereigns, with their own laws, and there's a problem here in that a Colorado judge effectively broke the state's own laws, that it passed as its own sovereign right.
There is a federal right that each of us be treated as per law, including state law.
Colorado was perfectly able to kick Trump off the ballot according to its own laws, but that didn't happen in this case.
It is in recognition and support of state sovereignty that the state laws are to be respected.
Balderdash. The States are left with choosing how to administer elections. They however must comply with both their own State Constitution (which they did) and the Federal Constitution (which they absolutely did).
SCOTUS looked at that and said - 'We want Trump. Screw you. We don't want States to be sovereign enforcing the laws. And we will kill your ruling by gutting the plain language of the amendment and demanding that the Congress must first make rules. Pththth.'
@volkris
It amounts to the same.
The #SCOTUS took to itself the power to overrule a State acting in direct compliance with the requirements of the #Constitution to over rule the Constitution.
Had they wished to say that AND comport with the Constitution they would have had to also rule that #Trump (an adjudicated insurrectionist IS ineligible under the 14th.
That precise question was before them. In choosing to avoid that they violated the 14th.