Democrats didn’t vote to vacate because they like to watch chaos. They simply will not support McCarthy unless he offers something in return. Their vote is a bargaining chip and they aren’t throwing it away.

A key issue, often overlooked, is that US law imposes significant restrictions on the export and sale of military hardware.

Starlink is currently not considered military hardware. SpaceX is desperately trying to keep it that way, their ultimate goal is to sell subscriptions to civilians. Thus they get anxious when it is openly used for military purposes.

In this regard Starlink is somewhat similar to civilian GPS receivers, which automatically shut down at 1200 mph so they can’t be used in missiles.

If we had a policy of nationalizing contracted military infrastructure, then nobody would make a contract with the military.

And while this may sound good to some, it sure wouldn’t be in Ukraine’s interest. Unreliable Starlink access is better than no Starlink access at all.

I could’ve sworn you were arguing against the “heavy hammer of justice”. But if you aren’t actually calling for leniency then we agree: these particular parents deserve to be charged, and addicts of all types deserve more systemic support.

I already replied to them.

Both of you are trying to argue that opiate addicts deserve more leniency than other types of addicts, but I don’t think you’ve made your point well at all.

In fact, some of the arguments seem exactly backwards. For example, opiates are more highly regulated than alcohol, which implies we should be less tolerant of accidental deaths causes by opiates.

They aren’t completely different, they have in common a direct link to harming bystanders. And usually we punish people who cause harm to bystanders.

So if you have a specific difference in mind that justifies lenience towards opiate addicts who harm bystanders but does not also apply to alcoholics who do the same, then you should spell it out.

The choices of those parents also hurt someone else. Accidentally poisoning children is not inherent to opiate addiction - in fact, it is less common than accidentally killing a pedestrian while DUI. And there are resources for both alcoholics and opiate addicts, usually under the same roof.

We are choosing to address drunk driving, as we have for years, through stricter prison sentencing, which has never improved or otherwise addressed the root causes of drunk driving. Punishing drunk drivers makes everyone feel better, because…children dying is fucking devastating and we need someone held accountable, and drunk drivers do bear at least some responsibility. But just because it makes us feel better doesn’t mean it is effective.

There are many other things that need doing–many, many things–to make a dent in drunk driving, and we keep pulling out the same useless tool.

Do you disagree with any of that?

If we follow your reasoning, then there is also no reason to punish someone who kills a pedestrian while driving drunk.

I don’t hope that aid is held up. It’s going to Floridians in need, many of whom already hate DeSantis. And anyway it would set a terrible precedent for a President to try to punish people living in states where the governor is a political opponent.

On the other hand, I do hope that DeSantis is politically humiliated by the federal aid.

The article says that it could become a hurricane, not that it’s expected to do so.

There are no special regulations on what constitutes a “news” broadcast in the US.

If you lie in public, whether on TV or Facebook, you can be sued for defamation. Which is exactly what happened to Fox.

In specific circumstances, you can be prosecuted for criminal libel but those circumstances do not apply to Fox.

You’re right about Franken. But Kennedy’s death didn’t immediately end the supermajority, since his temporary replacement was also a Democrat.

The infrastructure bill was resurrected as the Inflation Reduction Act, which Manchin voted for.

Democrats do plenty, especially at the local level.

The problem is that some voters have barely the attention span necessary to watch an entire TikTok video. They start complaining unless they see something new in their feed every day so they can click “like”.

But that’s not how democracy works, in fact that’s never been how it worked. To take just one example, abortion opponents developed a long term strategy that only came to fruition after several decades.

That’s who you’re up against: people who know how to play the long game. So if you are frustrated by a lack of short term gains, then you aren’t cut out for American politics.

Democrats had a supermajority for only ten months, and in that time they managed to pass a major piece of legislation on a highly controversial topic.

If you expected more than one in that time frame, then you really don’t understand how American politics works.

Manchin consistently votes with Democrats whenever his vote matters.

When his vote doesn’t matter, I don’t care how he votes or what he says.

He did discuss his own criminal record at least once on his channel:

https://youtu.be/Rcv5fuOdcZs

First of all, nothing in the Constitution gives courts the power of judicial review. They sort of made up that power all by themselves.

Regardless, if Congress decided to regulate the SCOTUS then they would most likely strip jurisdiction only from the SCOTUS itself, not from all federal courts. This is also how it was done in the past. The SCOTUS basically conceded that as long as some judge still had the power of judicial review, then Congress could remove the SCOTUS itself from the process.

Which means that the DC Circuit Court would make a final, non-appealable decision on whether the Constitution allows their colleagues in the SCOTUS to be bound by ethics laws - just as they are.

Using the same process, Congress could strip appellate jurisdiction from the SCOTUS in any case that involves a particular law. Which includes a law that they just passed.

The key is that when the SCOTUS reviews laws, it is nearly always exercising its power of appellate jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction. And the Constitution allows Congress to impose whatever regulations it wants over appellate jurisdiction. So if the SCOTUS isn’t allowed to hear cases involving a law, then it can’t strike down that law.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.