Other Stuff Happens

With so much SCOTUS stuff, feel there should be a "Meanwhile" standard as in Stephen Colbert's show, but less lame. Sadly, that segment never seems to work, with each individual bit not funny and at times not even timed that well. I'm not sure if that's just me, but it doesn't work for me.

Juneteenth: On June 19, 1865, the official Union control of Texas was declared for the purposes of the Emancipation Proclamation, meaning the end of slavery in that state.  This was honored for its specific events, but also its wider implications about freedom and so on. Thus, "Juneteenth" was born, and eventually every state (Hawaii in the process) but the Dakotas in some fashion declared it an official holiday. 

It was not the end of slavery -- that took the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in December, the EP not applicable to areas not under the Confederacy at the time of its proclamation at the beginning of 1863 (like Kentucky, though it was actually declared part of the Confederacy by the "country" itself along with Missouri). But, again, the day has wider implications. And, the same applies to the now federal holiday. 

“Juneteenth National Independence Day Act,” designates Juneteenth National Independence Day as a legal public holiday.  It was held up by Sen. Ron Johnson (sure) in part allegedly because he didn't want  another federal holiday, cost-wise and all. One article (won't even link; who knows) says he was even willing to trade Columbus Day (why not?) money-wise.  Anyway, in the end only fourteen Republicans voted against it, even some reprobates went along.  It's cost!  It's confusion with Independence Day!  (mildly see the point there --- why not Freedom Day -- but it was Independence for slaves) It's critical race theory!  

Yeah sure.  This is prime Biden/Harris material and sure enough that slavery very well deserves its own day.  It being close to Independence Day makes some disagree of sense too.  You can even talk about Father's Day, including black fathers, and the timing might be notable.  

Voting: I referenced Sen. Manchin's last proposed compromised on voting yesterday.  I wasn't the only one who supported it, even if the usual Twitter suspects talked about "crumbs."  Stacey Abrams supported it.  Queen.  And, Sen. Blunt, who at times seems serious, basically suggested now the whole thing should just be named after her.  

It was part of the final blow, suggesting not even the gentle lady from Alaska (who Joe latched onto as the ONE Republican supportive, hey bipartisan!) would vote to more things forward.  At first, it just looked like Mitch and other assholes.  But, then others who are of course assholes too, if somewhat less blunt (ha ha) about it, came out too.  Still, I saw that Schumer started the process to call a major voting rights case to a vote.

Attorney General Garland, as noted before, had a big speech talking about the historical effects to fight for voting rights.  And, that his office will hire a lot more people to do so.  There are things they can do now, but various people who are in the know as do others more average like myself think a lot more needs to be done.  The question is if actual legislation can be passed.  We are at a key moment and we will have to see.  

It's easy just to be pessimistic, since it doesn't get your hopes up. Shades of a  too cool for school teen who doesn't want to show they care.  But, a lot of water is under the bridge now, and things like Mitch saying he won't even confirm justices in 2023 if given the chance (showing the importance of line drawing in 2016), really show how blatant the situation is.  They already rejected the 1/6 Commission.  And, what will happen to move the needle might not even happen in June.  So, it is painful, of course.

AUMF 2002: One other thing that should not be ignored is the House, by an actual bipartisan vote (almost fifty Republicans voted for it), overturned the authorization of military force tied to the invasion of Iraq. The authorization is laying there, while the executive uses it along with other reasoning (self-defense or whatever) to deal with a very different situation.  

The power of Congress over war and peace here has been for a long time to a significant degree -- not totally mind you -- delegated to the executive. And, the power of a unitary executive was recognized from the Founding anyway.  It is therefore significant if Congress can change gears here, especially since at least in a broad sense the Biden Administration is on board.  The tough part is what to use next.  

But, like  border issues, you have to bite the bullet and try to change a situation that has issues.  The Senate here is a question mark for me. Various Republicans hate that Biden said he will pull out of Afghanistan.  Still, foreign policy like this has less ability to be a "can't touch this" and you can imagine it is possible enough Republicans to join at least ending the 2002 AUMF (not having any replacement is dubious, but it is not impossible -- the executive can still fill in basic rules to deal with use of force to fill in a gap).  

And, that would be a real step forward.