usernamesAreTricky @ usernamesAreTricky @lemmy.ml

Posts

710

Comments

1,234

Joined

2 yr. ago

it is challenged, it occupies time and resources

It also takes up their time and resources to which I say: good. Slow it all down

They'd rather be able to steam roll through it all. Make them waste time defending everything so they can't sue as much about things they do care about or move on to putting other things in effect

There are already groups that have pledge lawsuits on this specific executive orders. The courts don't just decide to do a lawsuit, people and organizations

Others have already filed multiple lawsuits on multiple of his executive orders. There's 4 different lawsuits already filed against his one trying to overturn birthright citizenship for instance. ACLU, group of 22 state attorney generals, separate group of states, and some other orgs.

Also note that they're also filing many of these in courts with more dem appointees who are much more likely to grant injunctions, rule favorably, etc. This is a tactic called judge shoping that republicans have historically loved to exploit and now it's being used against them. Most cases never reach SCOTUS so this stuff matters. SCOTUS can only take up so many cases with 9 justices and there's already massive numbers of suits here

Actually it being poorly written helps a lot with court challenge. That was one of the reasons why so much was overturned in his first administration. There was a fear that this time he'd sign better written executive orders that would survive challanges instead we're getting a lot of them like this

You've heard of non-binary gender, get ready for its upgraded form: unary gender

Bad headline IMO, she's more so pointing out more flaws in it which is different than laughing it off

You can develop entirely AMAB presentation with XX chromosomes

See de la Chapelle syndrome

Many don't even know that they have XX chromosomes at all

The EO definition didn't refer to chromosomes at all actually it referred to female as "at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell" and male "at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell."

A zygote is a singular cell at coneception... so you could also argue it's saying everyone's bigender actually. In any case its extremely poorly written, goes against science, and forgets about intersex people

(also note that XX and XY chromosomes don't guarantee AMAB or AFAB. You can have XX chromosomes and present completely AMAB and vice versa)

People are pointing out is that at conception there is only one cell, the fertilized egg / zygote. So everyone would have only the "large reproductive cell" (the egg). It's honestly so poorly written that you could also argue it's saying everyone's bigender too

But as an aside, it's actually not even true that XY guarantees someone will be assigned male at birth.People with Swyer syndrome present AFAB or intersex while having XY chromosomes

The opposite is true for people with de la Chapelle syndrome where they have XX chromosomes and present AMAB / intersex.

Many people with either of those never know they have XY or XX . There's also way more possibilities than just XX and XY. You can have XXY, XXYY, just X, and more

It's also worth noting that dem house leadership spoke against it explicitly too. For instance, Hakeem Jefferies, the Dem House Minority Leader, wrote against it before the vote too

The House Republican Child Predator Empowerment Act does not promote fairness and safety in sports.

It will unleash horrific child predators on girls and young women throughout America.

Unacceptable.

https://bsky.app/profile/hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social/post/3lfpl3s35v22s

The Dem House Whip, Whip Clark, made similar remarks on the house floor

While I am here, I will say to make sure to contact your senators on HR 28, regardless of party, so they know how strongly people feel about it and ensure it doesn't get past the senate filibuster. It can make more of a difference than you might think

https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

What are Dems supposed to do here exactly that they're not already doing. Please elaborate with specifics because I am very very tired of comments like this without any specific critiques. The title isn't reflecting what they are doing. They aren't boycotting, they are specifically trying to block republicans from doing anything until the special election where the chamber will become tied

They are already getting in the mud a bit here by trying to stop the session until the special election. They have made a lot of moves here to block Republicans. They swore in dems early so that they could block quorum and they did so in secret to catch Republicans off gaurd, Gov Tim Walz called the special election as soon as possible despite republicans trying to push the date further out, they had the Democratic secretary of state declare no quorum was met so that they have great merit for legal challenges if republicans try and ignore the law, etc.

Edit: also the Minnesota Secretary of State just came out and said they intend to file suit to challange Republicans ignoring his declaration of no quorum and adjournment

https://www.sos.state.mn.us/about-the-office/news-room/secretary-simon-statement-on-opening-session-of-the-minnesota-house-of-representatives/

Article seems to suggest that the government might be trying to make these plans without ByteDance's knowledge

It’s unclear whether ByteDance knows about the Chinese government’s plans and TikTok and Musk’s involvement in the discussions, the report said. Senior Chinese officials are debating contingency plans involving TikTok’s future in the U.S. as part of larger discussions about working with President-elect Donald Trump, the report added.

A TikTok spokesperson said in an email to CNBC, “We can’t be expected to comment on pure fiction.” X didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Helpful links on how to delete stuff that's meta owned

Permanently Delete Your Facebook Account

Permanently delete or deactivate your Instagram account

Deleting your WhatsApp account

He already was found guilty on 34 counts by a jury in May. This is about his sentencing

That's not what the article said. Read the next paragraph. They vote to let it go to the floor where they plan to vote against it there

Voting to print the bill means we have the chance to debate it, challenge it, and vote against it on the record with our colleagues

States laws will matter a hell of a lot. When roe was overturned things immediately fell to the states. That's the most likely way the court would overturn gay marriage should they go for it

In terms of trans rights that is unfortunately more true lately, yes, though historically any transphobic dems have lost their primaries. We can and should challenge there again

Democrats have made serious effort to codify a lot of marriage equality at state and federal level specifically to try to push back against this kind of stuff

For instance, the federal resepct for marriage act

RFMA officially repealed DOMA and requires the federal government to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages, codifying parts of Obergefell, the 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor, and the 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act

State level intatives have removed bans from many state laws and constitutions such as California

Democrats in Virginia are trying to pass constitutional ammendments to remove it right now that they have a majority in both chambers. They removed bans from the state law already

And so on

Stop with the "both sides" here

Edit: and to clarify if you were reading only the pull quote, the very next paragraph is about how they are voting against this resolution when it gets to the floor

They are already pointing out how it's a distraction. The media just gives all the preference towards hearing Trump, so you didn't hear them calling him out

Everyday Americans are fed up with the high cost of living.

Stop the foolishness about Greenland, Panama or the Gulf of Mexico.

Let’s solve the problems that matter.

https://bsky.app/profile/hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social/post/3lfasm4akss2c

What does renaming the Gulf of Mexico have to do with lowering the cost of living in America?

Absolutely nothing.

https://bsky.app/profile/hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social/post/3lf66dkh2uc24

Elections are not run federally, they are run by each state which makes it harder for Republicans to be as aggressive as they'd like to be

Mind you they lost a US house seat this cycle even with Trump winning. They have just a 3 seat majority. They would need a gain of +70 seats in the house in a midterm environment to get to 2/3

On the senate side, Republicans would need to pick up 12(!) seats to get 2/3. In the 2026 map, that's extraordinarily difficult and would require winning extremely deep blue seats. 66 senators is a lot. They would have to win literally every single senate seat up for election in 2026

Assuming they win all the solid red + lean red seats, they would need to defend both senators in North Carolina and Maine to keep 53. Then they'd have to flip the tossups of Michigan and Georgia to get to 55. Then the lean blue Minnesota senate seat to get to 56.

Then the very likely blue seats of New Mexico, Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire to get to 60. Then to get to 66, they would need to win the safe blue states of Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island to get 66

Midterms are usually very unfavorable to the party in power. Even with more stringent voter laws, that would be a tall ask. Flipping safe blue senate senates where dems have state and local control would be insane

And you'd have to flip a large number of state legislature in deep blue states too

Would be difficult for him to do so via any legal means. Each individual States run elections. They are not federally run, even for federal offices per the US constitution

Election days are similarly set by the US constitution

The bar to change that is quite high with 2/3 of congress + 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify. And while Supreme Court is insane, they did recently ruled 6-3 against the insane independent state legislature theory (which would have meant even state courts could not rule on anything election related) which is related to the exact piece of the constitution

Plus 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify which would be another high bar

There's a reason why there's so few constitutional amendments

Reminder to get off Facebook and Instagram

This isn't the first time they've pulled stuff like this nor will it be the last