Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Water John

CA has just voted in the EC pushing Biden and Harris over 270 votes, it's official.

TomOnBoard

So, despite all the tantrums, rattle- throwing, bull**** legal manouevres and general bolloxology, it's official!

Congratulations President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris.... Enjoy the moment.... Aaaand, as you've both been doing so successfully for almost 6 weeks now, continue to ignore the flatulence and other gaseous emissions that experienced science- aware folks know must emanate from things that are rotting from the head... Keep planning.. Keep preparing... Just be wise and caring in those preparations.

Biden/Harris Abu!!!

TomOnBoard

Just viewing Joe's post EC speech!

Great speech!

I'm a bit concerned about the amount of throat clearing though! I have no doubt that the thugs will stop at nothing to infect him with Covid. I hope his throat-clearing is just catarrh!!

FreudianSlippers

Manic Moran wrote: »

I did, because you replied to my response to the question. Why would this be remarkable?

My point is that the details of what the federal government can do are sufficiently confusing that even a Presidential candidate can slip up and have to be corrected by his lawyer VP running mate, let alone Irish people on a discussion board.

It's rare to see someone attempt to be so condescending and so fundamentally wrong in the same post, but alas we have it here folks!

The short answer, if one is seeking it, is that we don't actually know whether an Executive Federal mask mandate is possible or not - as I mentioned in another thread, the likely key legislation is the Public Health Service Act ("PHSA") which technically allows for the CDC to implement measures and/or regulations (such as perhaps a Federal mask mandate) where it deemed that they were necessary due to inter-State transmission of communicable diseases.

Whether the interpretation and/or use of that legislation in implementing a Federal mask mandate is deemed proportionate is a question for the Supreme Court, who may follow political rather than purely legal reasoning in their decision. It would be my view, however, that in reading the legislation and prior SC decisions relating to it that a mask mandate on a Federal level would have very little if any impact on civil liberties (due to legislation already allowing for exemptions for religious purposes) or economic impact, so I think if it wasn't a politically motivated decision the SC would probably let a Federal mask mandate stand.

There is a separate but related legal question surrounding whether Congress could pass a Federal mask mandate and yet another question about Federal mask mandates as they relate to Federal property itself.

I will say it's certainly not as clear-cut of a "no" as this poster would like you to believe.

FreudianSlippers

By the way, if anyone is interested in the twisted conservative ramblings against Federal mask mandates that I personally find the most amusing, it's actually an argument against Congress passing such a mandate and it boils down to this:

Not wearing masks has hurt the economy (restaurants/shops/etc. closed), wearing masks would arguably allow these places to reopen and thus improve economic conditions. But! That would be an act of Congress "creating commerce" in order to regulate it, so by its very nature the argument is that Congress can't do anything that would "create commerce" if there is a regulation put on that "new" commerce.

It's real snake eating its tail stuff.

Brussels Sprout

McConnell finally publicly recognises Biden as President Elect:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1338867152586096645

pixelburp

Sometimes the nature of politics can really turn one's stomach: sure, the game demands a certain brass neck to say one thing and do another, but McConnell's behaviour throughout the last 4 years has been borderline at best. But at any point after November 3rd, he could have stepped in and shown leadership or courage; he could - and should - have put Trump in his place by countering the President's craven attempts at a coup by legal obfuscation. Instead, McConnell dissembled and tried to duck that responsibility, hanging around until the very last minute when the result couldn't be ignored any further. Can't be angering that MAGA base, just in case eh? I've said it before, that while I can almost rationalise Trump's ego and being, McConnell's cynical manipulation of the political system is more egregious and repulsive.

looksee

MadYaker wrote: »

Trump missed a trick he could have made millions selling masks with MAGA and Make America Great Again on them.

Will be interesting to see if this investigation into Hunters taxes throws up anything, I suspect it might.

If Hunter Biden's taxes need investigation then they should be investigated. No argument there.

However there is no reason why his activities should have any bearing on the President/President Elect. He is not, for example, likely to be co-opted onto the White House staff; he does not have any direct involvement in the Presidency. When we see him insinuating himself into international meetings of world leaders as though he has a right and purpose, then maybe his personal affairs should be examined. In fairness its something that should have been done in other similar situations.

Of all points to bring up this one has no traction, especially considering what has gone before. I wonder why you consider it worthy of mention, or what you are hinting at?

WrenBoy

I see theres a twitter campaign going at the minute to encourage people to put pressure on house members to withhold their vote for Pelosi as Speaker unless she guarantees a vote on Medicare For All. Saw Jimmy Dore (like him or loath him) pushing it this morning on Youtube, although I don't see it happening a Republican speaker of the House would really make a difficult year ahead more interesting to say the least.

Brussels Sprout

looksee wrote: »

If Hunter Biden's taxes need investigation then they should be investigated. No argument there.

However there is no reason why his activities should have any bearing on the President/President Elect. He is not, for example, likely to be co-opted onto the White House staff; he does not have any direct involvement in the Presidency. When we see him insinuating himself into international meetings of world leaders as though he has a right and purpose, then maybe his personal affairs should be examined.

Agreed. The only blemish on Joe Biden is indirect. His son, by virtue of who his father was, landed a plum job, on the board of a foreign company in a field for which he had no experience or qualifications. It's not a great look but it's not much of a scandal either.

WrenBoy wrote: »

I see theres a twitter campaign going at the minute to encourage people to put pressure on house members to withhold their vote for Pelosi as Speaker unless she guarantees a vote on Medicare For All. Saw Jimmy Dore (like him or loath him) pushing it this morning on Youtube, although I don't see it happening a Republican speaker of the House would really make a difficult year ahead more interesting to say the least.

I doubt he has the ears of too many congressional Democrats given that he'd be pitching at the far left of the party. There's zero chance of there being a Republican speaker of the House. Even the Democrats aren't that politically inept.

Timberrrrrrrr

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Agreed. The only blemish on Joe Biden is indirect. His son, by virtue of who his father was, landed a plum job, on the board of a foreign company in a field for which he had no experience or qualifications. It's not a great look but it's not much of a scandal either.



I doubt he has the ears of too many congressional Democrats given that he'd be pitching at the far left of the party. There's zero chance of there being a Republican speaker of the House. Even the Democrats aren't that politically inept.

If Trump's zealots are angry about that then they should be apoplectic about Ivanka, Jared etc al getting jobs.

Brussels Sprout

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If Trump's zealots are angry about that then they should be apoplectic about Ivanka, Jared etc al getting jobs.

That goes without saying of course. I deliberately didn't mention them to avoid whataboutery.

Objectively, he should not have been on that board but it's nothing compared to the elevation of Ivanka and Jarrod to positions of actual power that they were wholly unqualified for.

Headshot

Great to see Pete Buttigieg in the next administration as transportation secretary

Rjd2

WrenBoy wrote: »

I see theres a twitter campaign going at the minute to encourage people to put pressure on house members to withhold their vote for Pelosi as Speaker unless she guarantees a vote on Medicare For All. Saw Jimmy Dore (like him or loath him) pushing it this morning on Youtube, although I don't see it happening a Republican speaker of the House would really make a difficult year ahead more interesting to say the least.

Their is zero chance of that happening.

The left need to realise Biden doesn't give a **** about them because he simply does not need them. The plan about forcing him left is now a meme online ffs.

Biden by hiring all neoliberal ghouls (Mayor Pete in transport ffs) is reminding them with corporate media, Bluemaga and middle class republicans he doesn't need to do **** for them.

Tbf that's the perk of winning an election like Biden just did.

https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1339246023248646152

BonnieSituation

Step one: win the presidency [CHECK]

Step two: win the senate [PENDING]

Step three: reshape the country with a coalition of social democrats in the party [needs step 2]

This nonsense again rearing its head so close to the run-offs. F**k purity. Just win the damn thing and argue afterwards about how you go about this whole thing.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

My point was that Biden is asking people to wear masks, not ordering. Because he can’t order it.

So fundamentally we are in agreement, but your response read like a rebuttal.

If you take the reply to you out of context of the previous exchange I had with the other poster, yes, I can see how you would take it as such.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's rare to see someone attempt to be so condescending and so fundamentally wrong in the same post, but alas we have it here folks!

The short answer, if one is seeking it, is that we don't actually know whether an Executive Federal mask mandate is possible or not - as I mentioned in another thread, the likely key legislation is the Public Health Service Act ("PHSA") which technically allows for the CDC to implement measures and/or regulations (such as perhaps a Federal mask mandate) where it deemed that they were necessary due to inter-State transmission of communicable diseases.

Whether the interpretation and/or use of that legislation in implementing a Federal mask mandate is deemed proportionate is a question for the Supreme Court, who may follow political rather than purely legal reasoning in their decision. It would be my view, however, that in reading the legislation and prior SC decisions relating to it that a mask mandate on a Federal level would have very little if any impact on civil liberties (due to legislation already allowing for exemptions for religious purposes) or economic impact, so I think if it wasn't a politically motivated decision the SC would probably let a Federal mask mandate stand.

There is a separate but related legal question surrounding whether Congress could pass a Federal mask mandate and yet another question about Federal mask mandates as they relate to Federal property itself.

I will say it's certainly not as clear-cut of a "no" as this poster would like you to believe.

The Congressional Research Service has a short little paper on this matter.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10530

The bottom line is that the idea of the executive branch having the authority for such a mandate under the PHSA is a bit of a stretch requiring a very loose interpretation for which there is no precedent (and there is no enforcement provision anyway), and the idea of Congress managing to do it is even less of a chance.

I mean, sure, one can always throw a regulation out there and hope it sticks. It's a time-honoured tradition. So is the court rebutting such throwing. There is a reason why Harris walked back on the statement: She was correct. Biden promising to do something and risking having the law thrown out afterwards could be an opportunity for embarrassment he doesn't need for one of the first things he does in office.

Overheal

I know this won't happen but with angry MAGA on twitter it has me thinking about Kamala Harris and her senate seat, (I don't see why she'd have to step down before the 20th, or at minimum the 6th) It would be a nice moment of Unity on Jan 6 with congratulations for the first female VP by the current VP when he counts the votes with her present confirming her election win.

BonnieSituation

Overheal wrote: »

I know this won't happen but with angry MAGA on twitter it has me thinking about Kamala Harris and her senate seat, (I don't see why she'd have to step down before the 20th, or at minimum the 6th) It would be a nice moment of Unity on Jan 6 with congratulations for the first female VP by the current VP when he counts the votes with her present confirming her election win.

She's literally not VP 'til the 20th, so no need.

Obama stepped down early though to ensure he could campaign fully.

FreudianSlippers

Rjd2 wrote: »

Their is zero chance of that happening.

The left need to realise Biden doesn't give a **** about them because he simply does not need them. The plan about forcing him left is now a meme online ffs.

Biden by hiring all neoliberal ghouls (Mayor Pete in transport ffs) is reminding them with corporate media, Bluemaga and middle class republicans he doesn't need to do **** for them.

Tbf that's the perk of winning an election like Biden just did.

https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1339246023248646152

In the interests of fairness, it should also be pointed out that Jordan is a Bernie-or-buster.

FreudianSlippers

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you take the reply to you out of context of the previous exchange I had with the other poster, yes, I can see how you would take it as such.



The Congressional Research Service has a short little paper on this matter.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10530

The bottom line is that the idea of the executive branch having the authority for such a mandate under the PHSA is a bit of a stretch requiring a very loose interpretation for which there is no precedent (and there is no enforcement provision anyway), and the idea of Congress managing to do it is even less of a chance.

I mean, sure, one can always throw a regulation out there and hope it sticks. It's a time-honoured tradition. So is the court rebutting such throwing. There is a reason why Harris walked back on the statement: She was correct. Biden promising to do something and risking having the law thrown out afterwards could be an opportunity for embarrassment he doesn't need for one of the first things he does in office.

A) That paper, if you understand it, says almost exactly what I said - and the TL;DR version is:
(1) Could the Executive do it: Yes
(2) Would a neutral SCOTUS allow it on the basis of current legislation: probably but hard to say
(3) Would this SCOTUS allow it: absolutely no
(4) Is it politically a good thing for the Executive to do this and likely get shot down by SCOTUS as the first thing you do as President: no.

That's a massive shift from what you were peddling earlier though isn't it?

Brussels Sprout

Headshot wrote: »

Great to see Pete Buttigieg in the next administration as transportation secretary

It's great to see him get a top job but hard to see how exactly he was qualified for that particular one. Kinda seems more like "I need to find somewhere for Buttigieg to repay him for dropping out early....what's left?".

I saw someone on twitter describe it as the Ben Carson for HUD Secretary pick.

duploelabs

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

It's great to see him get a top job but hard to see how exactly he was qualified for that particular one. Kinda seems more like "I need to find somewhere for Buttigieg to repay him for dropping out early....what's left?".

I saw someone on twitter describe it as the Ben Carson for HUD Secretary pick.

I haven't seen Buttigieg fall asleep as often as Carson

AbusesToilets

The ATF has come out with a policy letter stating that AR style pistols will now have to be registered or considered illegal, some 8 years after the fact. When anti-gun folks query why gun owners don't trust the government and fight tooth and nail to preserve their rights, you can refer to this.

I say that as someone who thinks such pistols are dumb as hell, but this in another effort in a long litany of overreach by the ATF.

TomOnBoard

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The ATF has come out with a policy letter stating that AR style pistols will now have to be registered or considered illegal, some 8 years after the fact. When anti-gun folks query why gun owners don't trust the government and fight tooth and nail to preserve their rights, you can refer to this.

I say that as someone who thinks such pistols are dumb as hell, but this in another effort in a long litany of overreach by the ATF.

I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with the Biden/Harris Presidency, but I'm kinda dumbfounded... It seems like a random thought just dropped... What am I missing??

AbusesToilets

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with the Biden/Harris Presidency, but I'm kinda dumbfounded... It seems like a random thought just dropped... What am I missing??

The ATF is a federal agency. Biden has long supported restrictions on gun ownership. Biden is now in charge of said agency. Not that hard to follow.

duploelabs

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The ATF is a federal agency. Biden has long supported restrictions on gun ownership. Biden is now in charge of said agency. Not that hard to follow.

How many GC bills is McConnell sitting on currently?

dinorebel

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The ATF is a federal agency. Biden has long supported restrictions on gun ownership. Biden is now in charge of said agency. Not that hard to follow.

He's not of course.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The ATF has come out with a policy letter stating that AR style pistols will now have to be registered or considered illegal, some 8 years after the fact. When anti-gun folks query why gun owners don't trust the government and fight tooth and nail to preserve their rights, you can refer to this.

I say that as someone who thinks such pistols are dumb as hell, but this in another effort in a long litany of overreach by the ATF.

AR stands for "assault rifle". Pistols are hand guns. Your post makes no sense

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The ATF is a federal agency. Biden has long supported restrictions on gun ownership. Biden is now in charge of said agency. Not that hard to follow.

Biden isn't "in charge" of the ATF until he's inaugurated. Right now they report to Bill Barr.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

AR stands for "assault rifle". Pistols are hand guns. Your post makes no sense

The ATF's rules make no sense, but that's by design. They are AR pattern firearms without a buttstock, making them pistols.

When people talk about "common sense" gun laws, they rarely think to deal with issues like this, where the government and the ATF have made an absolute mess of things in an attempt to infringe on peoples rights to firearm ownership.

Biden isn't "in charge" of the ATF until he's inaugurated. Right now they report to Bill Barr.

I'm sure this will be as relevant in 30ish days as it is now