But Is It Too Little Too Late?

Democrats are scurrying. Not the rank and file Dems that are your neighbors. I’m talking about the do-nothing Democrats (when they do something, it’s usually the wrong thing!) in Congress. Realizing they are less than two months away from midterm elections that still don’t bode well for their party, Democrats in the House and Senate are trying desperately to do SOMETHING before November 8th.

But it ain’t gonna be easy.

See, in order to get Joe Manchin on his side for the big trillion dollar budget busting spending bill Congress passed (I think they called it “Inflation Reduction”?) Chuckles Schumer had to agree to a side deal. That was that the fossil fuel industry was going to get some sweetheart deals going forward. Of course, that is included as part of the federal budget bill that has yet to pass Congress. But that throws a wrinkle into the whole process because people like Lizzy Warren and Bernie Sanders are totally against the deal. Worse yet, there are 70 Democrats in the House that say they won’t vote for the budget if Manchin’s deal is included. They don’t have a 70 vote margin! It won’t even pass the House!

So, what happens if Manchin gets screwed and the federal budget doesn’t pass because they don’t have 50 Democrats to vote for it (without Sanders and Warren)? Does Manchin get fed up and join the Republicans (which would give them a majority and totally throw the last month into chaos)? It would be interesting.

But Democrats can’t afford to be blamed for a government shutdown at the end of this month. That would put the brakes on any “wins” they think they’ve had this past summer.

That is the most pressing issue Dems face leading up to the midterms, but they want more. They want a “Defense of Marriage” act that basically codifies what has already been passed as a federal law. Interestingly enough, Congress is worried because of the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling by the Supreme Court that ended the federal law with abortion rights. The reasoning here is that it’s a states-rights issue and that states can decide whether or not same sex marriage is legal in their state. But the difference is huge. One is a procedure. The other is a “binding contract” between two parties. I don’t know how you could be recognized in California as a married couple, but not in Ohio (which is the case). A lot of states don’t recognize same sex marriage today, some even have it in their state’s constitution that it’s banned!

The House is still considering a “robust public safety package”. It’s basically a walk-back of the Democrats’ “defund the police” movement. It was supposed to go for a vote in July, but Nancy Pelosi didn’t have the votes (and still doesn’t).

Then there is the ubiquitous assault weapons ban that keeps rearing it’s ugly head. Doubtful that will even come up before the midterms.

Dems are hoping that they can do something besides pass a federal budget bill before the midterms. However that could very well be too little too late. Most people seem to already have made up their minds. Only the independents are making up theirs now, and that’s what causing the races around the country to be tightening. The big question is, will it be enough?

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Advertisement

12 thoughts on “But Is It Too Little Too Late?

  1. In many ways, the states’ handling of marriage was just to collect the fees. It wasn’t until 1948 Perez versus Sharp in the California Supreme Court that an interracial marriage ban got struck down. As late as 1967 in Loving versus Virginia (yeah, really — Loving) that the last interracial marriage ban got knocked down. However, all were done within the state systems.

    Before all of that, I am not sure when states started banning interracial marriage. It could not have been law in French Louisiana (the Creole would not have existed).

    Liked by 2 people

    1. In 1967 when the Loving decision was announced by the SCOTUS, 16 states still had bans in place on interracial marriage. Some of these laws dated to the 1600’s but others were as recent as the early 1900’s. Of the states that had to repeal these laws due to Loving, Louisiana did indeed ban whites and blacks marrying. A few states banned marriages between whites and Asians too and a couple between whites and Native Americans.

      It should be noted that a few sitting US Senators have called for the this decision to be returned to the states, as opposed to us having a federal law.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. See, something like marriage can’t be returned to the states because if you’re married, you’re married. You can’t be married in your state and not in mine. That’s ridiculous! You’re probably going to think I’m some sort of nut, but when you start messing with stuff that we’ve been told in our various religions is good, or right, or wrong, we will usually always get in trouble. Just my two cents on that. I’m not big in talking religion here, and I respect everyone’s views on it because it’s personal.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Lone, I think the thing that animates progressives here is the recent Dobbs decision where Justice Thomas invited a challenge by conservatives on whether the decision to allow gays to marry was valid at a federal level, because he did not believe it was. He specifically wrote that. So if conservative activists take him at his word, and I believe they will, we will soon see a case brought to the SCOTUS to send that law back to the states, as they did with Dobbs.

        If that happens, then like in Dobbs, states with those anti-gay marriage laws still on the books will be in the place of needing to invalidate some marriages because they don’t believe in them.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Dave, here’s why I disagree. First and foremost same-sex marriage is taking a genie out of the bottle. You can’t at some point in time reverse that decision. And you can’t have it legal to be married, regardless who you are married to in one state, but not in another. You’re either married or you’re not. And while you and I may disagree on whether the genie should have been taken out of the bottle in this case, I think we can both agree that it IS out. And Clarance Thomas is not going to be able to do a damn thing about it. I think that the Dems marriage act will pass after the midterms, but I don’t think it’s needed. It’s not feasible to make this a states-rights issue.

        Like

      4. If there is anyone who will start mudslinging, it will be the far left liberals first, as they’re the ones infamous for starting smear campaigns to radically change things for the worse. As soon as that starts, if a conservative jumps in to counter the mud slinging with the truth, the circus show begins with nasty and vile baseless liberal slurs and slanders.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Upchuck Schumer is desperate, as he’s running out of his used toilet paper supply. He’s looking for more used wipes to fling his μ°° without it sticking to him.

    Like

Comments are closed.