Next week is Super Tuesday, which provides to me a real sense of where we are in the presidential race since unlike February, we are talking about a third or so of the delegates necessary to win. The first few races provide more limited evidence with around four percent. Nevada provided some evidence of Sanders' support in a state with some diversity while today's South Carolina Primary is promoted as a sort of "firewall" for Biden.
I am strongly supportive of Elizabeth Warren, somewhat wary of her assumed negatives earlier on, thus supportive to some degree the likes of Kamala Harris. But, we are past that moment, and even if I'm willing to imagine a Amy Klobuchar compromise (flagged that as a possibility early), doubt she has much of a shot even if she is the NYT "moderate" co-endorsee. More so than other years, I'm actively wary about the alternatives. Was I ever so against a possible option as Bloomberg? I don't recall so. Yes, I'm aware of needing to support the ultimate nominee. When wasn't that a thing? The stakes are higher now, but when was that not really a thing? Other than a limited (if notable) number of Sanders caucus/primary voters, people readily say they will do so.
But, let's keep in mind that the stakes shouldn't be as high as they are. The clown show responding to the virus that some confuse with Corona beer just is the latest example of it being simply horrid that it isn't more widely accepted that Trump simply cannot be elected in a sane universe. I saw reference to a somewhat more limited reason this should be so.
Prof. Sepper notes that the Administration argues that even race is "maybe" enough to justify antidiscrimination laws, moving past even the counter to those who say race, sex and sexual orientation should be treated the same. When the Supreme Court punted (about the best realistic option there even though the reasoning is dubious) in the cake case, this sort of question was left open. Now, we have the Kavauangh Court and even with more sane people in the White House, the constitutional test is up in the area. Kennedy was the fifth vote in Hobby Lobby, as one recalls, and was the only conservative there that didn't merely grant the compelling interest to protect contraceptives rights.
Equality sanity as well as the courts are at stake in November.
I am strongly supportive of Elizabeth Warren, somewhat wary of her assumed negatives earlier on, thus supportive to some degree the likes of Kamala Harris. But, we are past that moment, and even if I'm willing to imagine a Amy Klobuchar compromise (flagged that as a possibility early), doubt she has much of a shot even if she is the NYT "moderate" co-endorsee. More so than other years, I'm actively wary about the alternatives. Was I ever so against a possible option as Bloomberg? I don't recall so. Yes, I'm aware of needing to support the ultimate nominee. When wasn't that a thing? The stakes are higher now, but when was that not really a thing? Other than a limited (if notable) number of Sanders caucus/primary voters, people readily say they will do so.
But, let's keep in mind that the stakes shouldn't be as high as they are. The clown show responding to the virus that some confuse with Corona beer just is the latest example of it being simply horrid that it isn't more widely accepted that Trump simply cannot be elected in a sane universe. I saw reference to a somewhat more limited reason this should be so.
A strong support of this variety of discriminatory law should be something that leads some Republican minded sorts to oppose Trump as well. Some other (we aren't lacking examples) policy related reason might be a better option pragmatically, but let's cover this. It has a familiar ring. Among the blogs that no longer allow comments (Concurring Opinions no longer exists) is a conservative leaning Catholic law related one that I and others pushed back upon in cases of this sort.Two important things to note about the DOJ's support for the Free Speech claim of a wedding photographer against public accommodation law: 1. A new way of describing the claim 2. The erasure of eradicating sex discrimination as a compelling government interest. /1 Thread— Liz Sepper (@lsepper) February 28, 2020
Prof. Sepper notes that the Administration argues that even race is "maybe" enough to justify antidiscrimination laws, moving past even the counter to those who say race, sex and sexual orientation should be treated the same. When the Supreme Court punted (about the best realistic option there even though the reasoning is dubious) in the cake case, this sort of question was left open. Now, we have the Kavauangh Court and even with more sane people in the White House, the constitutional test is up in the area. Kennedy was the fifth vote in Hobby Lobby, as one recalls, and was the only conservative there that didn't merely grant the compelling interest to protect contraceptives rights.
Equality sanity as well as the courts are at stake in November.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!