Friday, March 26, 2021

Beware getting what you wish for

Up until November of 2013 the US Senate required 60 votes to confirm Presidential nominations and appointments. Then Senator Harry Reid -- a Democrat -- decided that was just too much to bear and ended it in favor of a simple majority vote. 

At the time I told anyone who would listen that this was a mistake that the Democrats would rue once they no longer held the Senate. 

Of course, the Democrats lost the Senate -- as happens -- and the Republicans happily used the simple majority vote to confirm a metric butt-ton of President Trump's nominations and appointments. 

Over the screaming and pearl-clutching of the Democrats. 

The worm turns, and now the Democrats have decided to nuke the filibuster -- which, much like the previous nomination and appointment rule, requires 60 votes to break. They'd like to break a filibuster with a simple majority, or get rid of it all together. 

Allow me to put on my Cassandra hat. Let us cast our thoughts back to September of 1982. In the Senate, an amendment by Senator Jesse Helms is up for vote. This amendment, if passed, would permanently ban all Federal funding for abortions (excepting only if the mother's life was in danger); it would declare that Roe v. Wade was a mistake; and would provide for direct appeal to the Court if any State should pass pro-abortion legislation. 

It failed due to a filibuster by the Democrats. Understand that at the time, the Republicans had the Senate. 

How would history be different if the filibuster has not existed? 

Does anyone on the Democrat side of the Senate have enough functioning brain cells to understand the implications here? Does anyone on the Democrat side understand that they won't hold the Senate forever, that the Republicans will take it back, and be able to take a successful shot at Roe v. Wade with 51 votes? 

Given the reaction over the Democrat's self-inflicted wounds from removing the 60-votes for nomination, I'm guessing not. 

So, I'm going on record as saying, "You don't want to get rid of the filibuster. If you do, it's going to bite you on the arse later down the road." 

Just saying. 

LawDog

Thursday, March 18, 2021

Oh, fer the luvva ...

EDIT: I had a post here regarding the Biden video that looks like bad CGI. 

Robb Allen over at Sharp As A Marble  commented on my Facebook and is pretty sure this is actually an artefact involving several issues.

I trust his expertise, and his explanation made sense; so I was incorrect, and I'm editing this one.

Biden is still a houseplant, though.

LawDog

Sunday, March 14, 2021

Time

Well, the time has changed again, and once more I'm mainlining coffee to try to adjust. With that in mind (and in search of non-offensive blog fodder) I'd like to direct the attention of my Gentle Readers to a little-known law: The Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. §§ 260-64). You can find the text here

 I say "little-known" because it's fairly obvious that a whole bunch of folks in the Texas Legislature haven't read it.

As usually happens about twice a year, folks -- your Humble Scribe included -- get a little cross over the whole hour moving thing, and we'd like to stop that from happening. Which is all well and good, and has my complete approval.


Here's where the very-highly-paid legislators initiated intimate contact with the juvenile canine: Under Federal Law you can't choose to stay on Daylight Stupid Time.

The State legislatures can choose to switch twice a year; or they can choose to stay on Standard Time. There isn't a third option.

So, any State Law decreeing a stay on Daylight Stupid Time violates Federal law -- specifically the Uniform Time Act of 1966 -- and is, thus, a non-starter.

Yes, we need to quit switching back-and-forth, but any bill offering a choice between DST and Standard Time is going to get shut down, because we aren't going to win that one in the Supreme Court, and we have other, more important, fish waiting to fry in that particular venue.

If you're in Texas, kindly contact your State legislators, insist that we stop bouncing back and forth on times twice a year; and remind them to read the actual  Federal law controlling said bouncing so we can actually get it changed.

Ta, ever so.

LawDog