#Biden-Harris

[ridenwithbiden]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

don't piss off cat people

* * * *

Biden-Harris promote Supreme Court reform!

July 30, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

At long last! President Biden announced proposals for significant reforms to the Supreme Court, and presumptive nominee Kamala Harris immediately endorsed those reforms! President Biden has also proposed a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. US that granted extra-constitutional immunity to presidents after they leave office.

Although passing these reforms depends on the outcome of the 2024 election and the successful defense of the proposed laws in the courts, President Biden and V.P. Harris have changed the framework for discussing the Supreme Court. The question is now, “When?,” not “If?”

It has been a long and uncertain road to this point, but the Supreme Court’s stream of lawless decisions issued by a conflicted and hyper-partisan bench has proved too much for the American people. In proposing the reforms and constitutional amendment now, President Biden has ensured that the Supreme Court is on the ballot in 2024.

President Biden authored an op-ed in the Washington Post that explains his proposals. See Opinion  Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law. (This article is accessible to all.) I hope you will take the time to read the entire op-ed.

President Biden places the ethics scandals at the Court front-and-center in his proposal:

[T] he court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. [¶] What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.

President Biden has proposed three reforms:

1.    A constitutional amendment that would provide that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office 2.    A binding code of ethics 3.    Eighteen-year term limits (A president would appoint a new justice every two years, who would serve for 18 years).

Some commentators welcomed the proposals as a “practical way forward” that could garner support for passage after the 2024 election. See Politico, Democrats May Have a Real Chance to Reform the Supreme Court. President Biden’s proposal omitted enlarging the Court, a proposal that the Politico article described as an unpopular outlier not likely to gain legislative support.

Each proposal faces difficulties in gaining passage.

As to the constitutional amendment abolishing presidential immunity, Ian Millhiser in Vox reviewed the historical challenges faced by earlier proposed amendments, including the ERA and a proposal to ban child labor. (To date, neither has passed.) An amendment requires approval by a 2/3 supermajority in both chambers of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states (38 states). That is a tall order, indeed. But it won’t happen if we don’t try. And Republican states may be more supportive of such an amendment if they perceive that a Democratic president—like Kamala Harris—is too powerful.

The binding ethics code is plainly constitutional because the Constitution grants Congress the authority to create “exceptions” and impose “regulations” on the Court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction. But the plain words of the Constitution haven’t prevented Justice Alito from taking the position that Congress is constitutionally prohibited from imposing regulations on the Court. Alito should lose, but it will be a fight.

As to the term limits, there will be a fight over whether the Constitution’s grant of life tenure to judges—subject to good behavior—permits term limits. Some constitutional scholars (including Professor Laurence Tribe) believe that term limits are permissible in the absence of a constitutional amendment, while others disagree. The Supreme Court would likely decide this issue.

One reform not suggested by President Biden is enlarging the Court. That path would not be subject to constitutional challenge and would require only a majority vote in both chambers of Congress (and a carve-out to the filibuster, which requires only 51 votes in the Senate). But for reasons that escape me, many politicians and observers view the least legally objectionable pathway as the most radical. Nonetheless, Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts has proposed legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court to thirteen justices. See  Democracy Docket, ‘We Must Expand the Court:’ Sen. Markey, Advocates Call for Adding 4 SCOTUS Seats.

Oddly, in an interview with Laura Ingraham on Monday, Trump criticized President Biden’s proposal, claiming that Biden “wants to pack the Court.” Laura Ingraham responded, “That’s not in Biden’s proposal.”

Regardless of the way forward, reforming the Supreme Court is now on the table with the support of President Biden, Vice President Harris, and leading Democrats in Congress. It will happen—if only because the current reactionary majority will continue to curtail the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is only a matter of time—and it is up to us. We must all vote as if Supreme Court reform is on the ballot in 2024—because it is!

Kamala Harris continues to challenge Trump / Vance directly and vigorously

On Monday, an Iowa six-week abortion ban went into effect. At a campaign rally, V.P. Kamala Harris repeatedly referred to legislation restricting reproductive liberty in the states as “Trump abortion bans.” See WSJ, Harris Puts Abortion, a Weakness for Trump, at Center of Campaign. As noted in the WSJ article, President Biden was reluctant to say the word “abortion,” while Kamala Harris is a “fighter” on the issue who is willing to urge voters to “stop Donald Trump’s extreme abortion bans.”

V.P. Harris also posted a video on YouTube condemning the Iowa abortion ban and promising to sign legislation to protect the right to abortion nationally. See YouTube, Vice President Harris on Trump's Abortion Ban in Iowa | Harris 2024.

Some (most?) women sensed President Biden’s discomfort on the issue and are responding positively to Kamala Harris’s strong support for access to abortions and reproductive healthcare for all women in the US. Harris’s approach resonates with many women in America who felt that President Biden was a reluctant advocate for abortion rights, even though President Biden and Kamala Harris support the same policies.

The Harris Campaign continues to go after Trump and Vance with lightning speed and full force. Within hours of JD Vance removing his absolutist abortion stance from his website, the Harris HQ Twitter feed posted Vance’s now-deleted position with the comment, “Weird that Vance just deleted this from his website.”

The Harris campaign also posted a quick reply to Trump's claim on Monday that the Biden-Harris record on crime was “terrible.” The Harris campaign posted the following:

Our opponent Donald Trump is a criminal.

• Migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under the Biden-Harris administration. • As president, Donald Trump oversaw the largest single-year spike in the murder rate in more than a century. • As president, Trump proposed a $400 million cut to local law enforcement funding. • Trump has demanded the defunding of federal law enforcement, while proposing using the FBI and Justice Department to go after his political enemies. • JD Vance said, "I hate the police."

The Harris Campaign is also amplifying a clip from Trump's interview with Laura Ingraham that included this exchange:

Ingraham: Why not debate Kamala Harris? Trump: Because everyone already knows everything Ingraham: They’re saying you’re afraid of debating her Trump: I’m leading in the polls

Can you smell the fear? It is not true that Trump is leading in the polls. The race has tightened considerably, with Kamala Harris making up persistent deficits posted by President Biden. The race remains close, within the margin of error in many polls, but the trends all favor Kamala Harris. She has the momentum, and Trump and Vance are on the defensive.

So, if you are feeling good about Kamala Harris’s candidacy, you should be. After a whole week as the presumptive nominee, she continues to have the Trump campaign on its back foot. And the first three days of this week will feature massive online fundraisers and strategy meetings with hundreds of thousands of volunteers!

I invite readers who attend(ed) any of the online meetings to post your observations in the Comment section.

While we have reason to be hopeful, we have no reason to be complacent. We must beat Trump by a wide margin to remove all doubt and opportunity for election interference by Trump or the Supreme Court. (See Concluding Thoughts.)

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[porterdavis]

Biden-Harris HQ ain't playin'

[motziedapul]

Americans are so fucking exhausting. Jesus Christ.

"Destroy Palestine faster" is a psychotic thing to say. Absolutely fucking insane. "Better vote for Harris or Palestinians will die more horribly than they do already."

What kind of behaviour is that.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

"Watergate" spies were nothing compared to what Biden-Harris & the state controlled media have done to 'our democracy' and to our national security.

Define UNSCRIPTED:

Biden claimed that he was ‘First Black Woman to Serve with a Black President’ was made despite receiving questions ahead of the interview.

When asked whether the questions she asked Biden were sent to her by the White House or if she had to submit them for approval beforehand, Lawful-Sanders responded: “The questions were sent to me for approval. I approved them.”

Joe Biden blamed his glitchy debate night performance on Donald Trump. Biden told Stephanopoulos that he couldn't concentrate because he was distracted by Donald Trump who was shouting at him while he [Biden] tried to answer questions.

The Biden Administration has worked overtime to discredit Sky News & Sky News Australia for over 3 years because they have been sounding the alarm to a deaf dumb & blind world about Joe Biden's cognitive state. Take a look at the White House response after Biden's "glitchy" debate night performance: Time Stamp 4:00:00

Philadephia Radio Host explained to CNN how she was offered a choice of eight (8) questions to ask Joe Biden. She chose 4 out of the 8 questions🤦‍♂️

By Jim Hᴏft Jul. 6, 2024

Radio host Andrea Lawful-Sanders, who recently interviewed Joe Biden following his disastrous performance at the previous week’s debate, has confirmed that the questions she posed to Biden were provided by the White House ahead of time.

Biden participated in two pre-recorded interviews after the debate; one with Wisconsin-based WAUK and another with Philly-based WURD. Both interviews aired on Thursday morning.

In both instances, Biden seemed to struggle with articulating his thoughts clearly.

During the interview with WURD, Biden told Lawful-Sanders that he was proud to be the first black woman to serve with a black president.

“And by the way, I’m proud to be – as I’ve said – the first Vice President – first black woman to serve with a black president,” Biden said.

Following these interviews, Lawful-Sanders spoke with CNN’s Victor Blackwell about the process leading up to her conversation with Biden. Upon further questioning by CNN, Lawful-Sanders confirmed that the White House did indeed send her the questions prior to the interview. Out of eight potential questions provided, she chose four that she felt were most appropriate for their discussion. “If the White House is trying now to prove the vim, vigor, acuity of the President I don’t know how they do that by sending questions first before the interview so that the President knows what’s coming,” Blackwell said.

[ajunicetryagain]

The average voter has a lot of power in American elections. Not as much as if we had a proper democratic voting system but still quite a lot.

One state can swing the Senate, a few districts can swing the House, and every single vote for president matters.

That's why we "scold" about voting third party or sitting out—those choices are what gave us Trump in the first place, they're what gave us George W. Bush.

Like Hilary Clinton is too centrist by far, way too hawkish, but she would've strengthened healthcare, not tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act 60+ times. She wouldn't have banned Muslims or stolen immigrant children from their parents or denied disaster aid because a certain state didn't vote for her.

But Trump did, and he'll do far worse if he gets a second chance because that's what terribly narcissistic, corrupt people do when they are threatened but manage to return to power—it's certainly what Benjamin Netanyahu's doing.

What's a little genocide and maybe starting a regional war if it keeps him out of jail? Trump had a nuclear dick-measuring contest with North Korea when he was safe, for fuck's sake. God only know what he'll do now.

Allowing him to come back to power—directly or indirectly—punishes the entire world. Nader voters thought they were "punishing" Gore for not being sufficiently pro-environment—and they succeeded in setting the climate fight back by decades.

Millions died in Bush's forever wars. How many have died because we elected him instead of the boring Democrat who is still obsessed with climate change? How many more will die if Trump gets his way on climate?

hey just want to remind my american followers that the US is still one of the most influential nations in the world and that one fascist in power makes everything worse everywhere for a long time. please don't fuck this up for the rest of us

[mysharona1987]

[this-is-a-podcast-fanblog]

"Kamala Harris raised 50+ million dollars after Biden dropped out!" you fools.... that's the money she got from selling Biden to One Direction :(

[mostly-funnytwittertweets]

[animentality]

[ridenwithbiden]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

John Darko

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 19, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 20, 2023

A little more than two years ago, on July 9, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order to promote competition in the U.S. economy. Echoing the language of his predecessors, he said, “competition keeps the economy moving and keeps it growing. Fair competition is why capitalism has been the world’s greatest force for prosperity and growth…. But what we’ve seen over the past few decades is less competition and more concentration that holds our economy back.”

In that speech, Biden deliberately positioned himself in our country’s long history of opposing economic consolidation. Calling out both Roosevelt presidents—Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who oversaw part of the Progressive Era, and Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who oversaw the New Deal—Biden celebrated their attempt to rein in the power of big business, first by focusing on the abuses of those businesses, and then by championing competition. 

Biden promised to enforce antitrust laws, interpreting them in the way they had been understood traditionally. Like his progressive predecessors, he believed antitrust laws should prevent large entities from swallowing up markets, consolidating their power so they could raise prices and undercut workers’ rights. Traditionally, those advocating antitrust legislation wanted to protect economic competition, believing that such competition would promote innovation, protect workers, and keep consumer prices down. 

In the 1980s, government officials threw out that understanding and replaced it with a new line of thinking advanced by former solicitor general of the United States Robert Bork. He claimed that the traditional understanding of antitrust legislation was economically inefficient because it restricted the ways businesses could operate. Instead, he said, consolidation of industries was fine so long as it promoted economic efficiencies that, at least in the short term, cut costs for consumers. While antitrust legislation remained on the books, the understanding of what it meant changed dramatically.

Reagan and his people advanced Bork’s position, abandoning the idea that capitalism fundamentally depends on competition. Industries consolidated, and by the time Biden took office his people estimated the lack of competition was costing a median U.S. household as much as $5000 a year. Two years ago, Biden called the turn toward Bork’s ideas “the wrong path,” and vowed to restore competition in an increasingly consolidated marketplace. With his executive order in July 2021, he established a White House Competition Council to direct a whole-of-government approach to promoting competition in the economy. 

This shift gained momentum in part because of what appeared to be price gouging as the shutdowns of the pandemic eased. The five largest ocean container shipping companies, for example, made $300 billion in profits in 2022, compared to $64 billion the year before, which itself was a higher number than in the past. Those higher prices helped to drive inflation. 

The baby formula shortage that began in February 2022 also highlighted the problems of concentration in an industry. Just four companies controlled 90% of the baby formula market in the U.S., and when one of them shut down production at a plant that appeared to be contaminated, supplies fell dramatically across the country. The administration had to start flying millions of bottles of formula in from other countries under Operation Fly Formula, a solution that suggested something was badly out of whack. 

The administration’s focus on restoring competition had some immediate effects. It worked to get a bipartisan reform to ocean shipping through Congress, permitting greater oversight of the shipping industry by the Federal Maritime Commission. That law was part of the solution that brought ocean-going shipping prices down 80% from their peak. It worked with the Food and Drug Administration to make hearing aids available over the counter, cutting costs for American families. It also has worked to get rid of the non-compete clauses which made it hard for about 30 million workers to change jobs. And it began cracking down on junk fees, add-ons to rental car contracts, ticket sales, banking services, and so on, getting those fees down an estimated $5 billion a year. 

“Folks are tired of being played for suckers,” Biden said. “[I]t’s about basic fairness.”

Today, the administration announced new measures to promote competition in the economy. The Department of Agriculture will work with attorneys general in 31 states and Washington, D.C. to enforce antitrust and consumer protection laws in food and agriculture. They will make sure that large corporations can’t fix food prices or price gouge in stores in areas where they have a monopoly. They will work to expand the nation’s processing capacity for meat and poultry, and are also promoting better access to markets for all agricultural producers and keeping seeds open-source. 

Having cracked down on junk fees in consumer products, the administration is now turning to junk fees in rental housing, fees like those required just to file a rental application or fees to be able to pay your rent online. 

The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission today released new merger guidelines to protect the country from mass layoffs, higher prices, and fewer options for consumers and workers. Biden used the example of hospital mergers, which have led to extraordinary price hikes, to explain why new guidelines are necessary. 

The agencies reached out for public comment to construct 13 guidelines that seek to prevent mergers that threaten competition or tend to create monopolies. They declare that agencies must address the effect of proposed mergers on “all market participants and any dimension of competition, including for workers.”

Now that the guidelines are proposed, officials are asking the public to provide comments on them. The comment period will end on September 18. 

One of the reporters on the press call about the new initiatives noted that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has accused the Biden administration of regulatory overreach, exactly as Bork outlined in a famous 1978 book introducing his revision of U.S. antitrust policy. An answer by a senior administration official highlighted a key element of the struggle over business consolidation that is rarely discussed and has been key to demands to end such consolidation since the 1870s. 

The official noted that small businesses, especially those in rural areas, are quite happy to see consolidation broken up, because it gives them an opportunity to get into fields that previously had been closed to them. In fact, small businesses have boomed under this administration; there were 10.5 million small business applications in its first two years and those numbers continue strong. 

This is the same pattern the U.S. saw during the Progressive Era of the early twentieth century and during the New Deal of the 1930s. In both of those eras, established business leaders insisted that government regulation was bad for the economy and that any attempts to limit their power came from workers who were at least flirting with socialism. But in fact entrepreneurs and small businesses were always part of the coalition that wanted such regulation. They needed it to level the playing field enough to let them participate.  

The effects of this turnaround in the government’s approach to economic consolidation is a big deal. It is already having real effects on our lives, and offers to do more: saving consumers money, protecting workers’ wages and safety, and promoting small businesses, especially in rural areas. It’s another part of this administration’s rejection of the top-down economy that has shaped the country since 1981. 

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[cyarskaren52]

[justahumblememefarmer]

Putting some positivity out there about the election

Harris has raised a record amount of money from small donors after Biden dropped out, in addition to being able to access all the funds from their campaign they already had

Trump is deeply unpopular and people have already seen the chaos that 4 years of his presidency would bring. A lot of people have been energized to vote against him, even if they're not fond of Dems

Polling showed a red wave for Republicans in the 2022 midterms, and yet they only barely had control of the House, and couldn't even agree on a Speaker for a historic amount of time. Dems also increased their lead in the Senate. Historically, midterms favor the opposition party and have lower turnout, so this is a good sign for the House in 2024

Dems are fighting back in swing states. PA and GA both put in Democratic senators in the midterms

In my home state of PA, I am from Bucks County, which is a swing county for the state. Moms for Libery took over the school board and used it to attack queer students, enact book bans, and funnel money to themselves and the superintendent. At the most recent election, Dems turned out and took back every single open seat, ousting the board and superintendent. Worry about similar takeovers in surrounding school boards also increased turnout

Abortion rights are on the ballot in many states, which has been a winning issue for Dems and increased turnout

Republicans were prepared to attack a feeble old Biden who isn't the strongest speaker. I don't think they expected him to actually drop out, and they now have to put an 78 year old convicted felon up against a prosecutor

Awareness of Project 2025 and it's contents has entered the public sphere and is being much more openly discussed on the news. While Trump has insisted he has nothing to do with it, most of the authors worked in his administration and Trump has worked closely with the Heritage foundation

Feel free to add more things on this thread, but the most important thing is to get out there and VOTE

Vote for President

Vote for Senators

Vote for Congresspeople

Vote in your local elections

Vote Blue down ballot

[culturevulturette]

Of course. All of this indictment nonsense is being driven by the White House.

[fuzzballsheltiepants]

ok looks like we're gonna be doing the same thing, different verse, now that it's Kamala Harris on the Dem ticket instead of Joe Biden.

friendly reminder that one of these 2 people is getting elected. there's not a magical 3rd party person who's mystical and perfectly progressive who is gonna come out of the woodwork and save us. not voting or voting 3rd party isn't a "protest," it's capitulation. so let's do a comparison:

On Gaza:

I forgot to add to this that Trump also stated he will deport any non-citizen who protests the war in Gaza.

On LGBTQ+ rights:

On criminal justice:

On reproductive rights:

On the border:

In case you don't believe me re: the last Trump point.

On voting rights:

On climate change:

On the working class: