9 votes

Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 18

Automatically posted
Tags: usa, politics, recurring.weekly

This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.

This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.

9 comments

  1. [2]
    kfwyre
    Link
    House passes same-sex marriage bill amid concern about Court reversal

    House passes same-sex marriage bill amid concern about Court reversal

    The House on Tuesday passed a bill that would recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level, with a bipartisan coalition supporting a measure that addresses growing concerns that a conservative Supreme Court could nullify marriage equality.

    Forty-seven Republicans joined Democrats in backing the bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify the federal protections for same-sex couples that were put in place in 2015, when the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges established same-sex marriage as a right under the 14th Amendment.

    12 votes
    1. kfwyre
      Link Parent
      Amid GOP support, Senate Democrats see hope for same-sex marriage vote CNN asked all 50 GOP senators if they will support the same-sex marriage bill. Here's where they stand.

      Amid GOP support, Senate Democrats see hope for same-sex marriage vote

      While there is still opposition — Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said it’s a “nonissue” — several Republican senators said they supported the effort and were working to convince their colleagues.

      “I think it’s important,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who is retiring at the end of this term. In March 2013, Portman announced he supported same-sex marriage, a surprise decision that he reached two years after his son, Will, told him that he was gay.

      Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also indicated they would probably support the legislation, which was already co-sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). The four Republican senators speaking in support means Democrats would need six more to meet the 60-vote threshold required to avoid a filibuster, assuming all 50 senators who caucus with the Democrats vote in favor, as expected.

      CNN asked all 50 GOP senators if they will support the same-sex marriage bill. Here's where they stand.

      Four Republican senators, so far, have either said they will support or will likely support the House-passed same-sex marriage bill, and that includes: Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (likely) and Thom Tillis of North Carolina (likely).

      Eight Republican senators, so far, have indicated they would vote "no," and oppose the same-sex marriage bill.

      Sixteen Republican senators, so far, are undecided or did not indicate support for the House-passed bill.

      Twenty-two Republican senators have yet to respond to CNN's inquiries.

      8 votes
  2. [3]
    skybrian
    Link
    Newsom signs California gun bill modeled after Texas abortion law (CNN) [...]

    Newsom signs California gun bill modeled after Texas abortion law (CNN)

    California Senate Bill 1327 is modeled after a Texas law that allows private citizens to bring civil litigation against abortion providers or anyone who assists a pregnant person in obtaining an abortion after as early as six weeks of pregnancy. The US Supreme Court in December allowed Texas' six-week abortion ban to remain in effect, which prompted Newsom, who has been supportive of abortion rights and pro-gun control, to say he was "outraged" by the court's decision and direct his staff to draft a similar bill to regulate guns.

    Under the California law, a person would also be able to sue a licensed firearms dealer who "sells, supplies, delivers, or gives possession or control of a firearm" to anyone under 21 years old. It allows citizens to sue for a minimum of $10,000 on each weapon involved, as well as attorney fees.

    Newsom, a Democrat, on Friday acknowledged that the law would likely be challenged in court.

    "We believe this will be litigated in the Supreme Court and we believe the Supreme Court will be challenged. Because if there's any principle left whatsoever -- and that's an open ended question -- with this Supreme Court, there is no way they can deny us the right to move in this direction," he said after signing the bill at Santa Monica College, the site of a 2013 shooting spree.

    The law, introduced in February, says that it would become "inoperative upon invalidation" of the Texas abortion law, should the US Supreme Court or Texas Supreme Court strike down that measure. The California law would then be "repealed on January 1 of the following year."

    [...]

    Ahead of the legislation signing Friday, he ran a full-page newspaper ad in three Texas newspapers that attacked Texas Gov. Greg Abbott over his position on abortion rights and guns. "If Texas can ban abortion and endanger lives, California can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives," Newsom said in a statement to CNN. "If Governor Abbott truly wants to protect the right to life, I urge him to follow California's lead."

    9 votes
    1. [2]
      Omnicrola
      Link Parent
      Wow... that is.... wow. I think that is the first case I know of where legislation in one state was passed not just in response to another state's legislation, but as a direct countermeasure. Are...

      Wow... that is.... wow. I think that is the first case I know of where legislation in one state was passed not just in response to another state's legislation, but as a direct countermeasure. Are these the first shots in a US Civil Cold War?

      2 votes
      1. skybrian
        Link Parent
        It's the start of more lawsuits. The Supreme Court is going to have to decide more disputes between the states, it seems. Despite frequent use of military metaphor like "courtroom battles."...

        It's the start of more lawsuits. The Supreme Court is going to have to decide more disputes between the states, it seems.

        Despite frequent use of military metaphor like "courtroom battles." There's not a lot of violence happening in courtrooms, and it isn't much like the Cold War either.

        3 votes
  3. HotPants
    Link
    The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

    The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

    Thirty years ago, a bold plan was cooked up to spread doubt and persuade the public that climate change was not a problem. The little-known meeting - between some of America's biggest industrial players and a PR genius - forged a devastatingly successful strategy that endured for years, and the consequences of which are all around us.

    9 votes
  4. [2]
    Omnicrola
    Link
    https://www.npr.org/2022/07/18/1111692082/steve-bannon-goes-on-trial-for-defying-jan-6-panel-subpoena If there's any kind of actual strategy here, it eludes me. At least someone of some import...

    https://www.npr.org/2022/07/18/1111692082/steve-bannon-goes-on-trial-for-defying-jan-6-panel-subpoena

    Bannon was indicted in November on two counts of contempt of Congress after he failed to appear for a deposition before the committee or provide requested documents in response to a subpoena. He has pleaded not guilty.

    Bannon also offered, a little over a week before the trial was set to open, to testify before the committee. He did not, however, offer to provide the requested documents.

    Prosecutors opposed the motion, saying it was irrelevant and had no bearing on his refusal to comply with the subpoena at the time.

    If there's any kind of actual strategy here, it eludes me. At least someone of some import will face consequences? Maybe? I'll not hold my breath though.

    6 votes
    1. psi
      Link Parent
      I read a similar article in the Washington Post. Evidently Bannon planned to inflict maximum pain on the Jan 6th committee (by subpoenaing Pelosi etc) in an attempt to force the prosecution to...

      I read a similar article in the Washington Post. Evidently Bannon planned to inflict maximum pain on the Jan 6th committee (by subpoenaing Pelosi etc) in an attempt to force the prosecution to drop the charges. Unfortunately for him (but fortunately for sanity), the judge saw through his nonsense and greatly limited the arguments he could make at trial.

      At a recent hearing that left Bannon’s legal strategy in tatters, his lawyer David Schoen asked U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, “What’s the point of going to trial if there are no defenses?” The judge replied simply: “Agreed.”

      So yeah, the judge has implored Bannon to stop wasting the court's time and bargain for a plea deal (similar charges against past defendants were plead down and resulted in no jail time). If convicted -- which he certainly will be -- Bannon will face 30 days in jail minimum.

      8 votes
  5. cmccabe
    Link
    An 'imposter Christianity' is threatening American democracy https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/24/us/white-christian-nationalism-blake-cec/index.html

    An 'imposter Christianity' is threatening American democracy
    https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/24/us/white-christian-nationalism-blake-cec/index.html

    Much of the House January 6 committee's focus so far has been on right-wing extremist groups. But there are plenty of other Americans who have adopted teachings of the White Christian nationalists who stormed the Capitol — often without knowing it, scholars, historians, sociologists and clergy say.

    3 votes