Cont: The Biden Presidency Part II

[BobTheCoward]

So Biden is just going to roll over on the vaccine mandate, huh?

Recall that Trump resubmitted his Muslim ban 3 times, tweaking it each time, until it finally got the SCOTUS stamp of approval.

The SCOTUS decision to say OSHA can't enforce a workplace vaccine mandate was pretty god-damned stupid and outrageous, but there were elements of the decision that indicated that the court may be open to a narrower (though still broad) mandate.

What else is Biden up to these days? Surely there's some spare lawyers hanging around the White House that could cook up another draft and get another EO issued.

Successfully managing covid is as core to Biden's political message as being an overt racist was to Trump's. Perhaps he should fight a bit harder.

I think the order applied only to the emergency use provision. They could crank out more targeted restrictions under the emergency use, plus pursue a broader method under the traditional, OSHA process.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Taking the virus seriously rescued Biden in the election, but public sentiment has shifted. Now people don't want the virus taken seriously anymore.

Vaccine mandates are popular. Unlike other forms public health policy, they don't really burden the general public in any meaningful way, excluding making life hell for anti-vax reprobates. I don't see there's any risk in following up on this.

At the the very least, it allows Biden to drive home the point that the right wing SCOTUS is the bad guy. Maybe that will boost Democratic energy and turnout.

 

[Segnosaur]

So Biden is just going to roll over on the vaccine mandate, huh?

Recall that Trump resubmitted his Muslim ban 3 times, tweaking it each time, until it finally got the SCOTUS stamp of approval.

The SCOTUS decision to say OSHA can't enforce a workplace vaccine mandate was pretty god-damned stupid and outrageous, but there were elements of the decision that indicated that the court may be open to a narrower (though still broad) mandate.

You are right... it does seem strange that he didn't try to re-introduce mandates in some alternate form. (That's what I might have done had I been president.)

Maybe he thinks (rightly or wrongly) that enough large companies have vaccine/testing requirements that additional government restrictions wouldn't provide significant benefit?

Or maybe his reading of the supreme court is that they will strike down ANY widespread vaccine mandate, and thinks it might be more harmful politically to repeatedly lose court cases (and look weak) than to say "I'm trying to stop covid but the conservative supreme court is blocking me".

 

[bruto]

You are right... it does seem strange that he didn't try to re-introduce mandates in some alternate form. (That's what I might have done had I been president.)

Maybe he thinks (rightly or wrongly) that enough large companies have vaccine/testing requirements that additional government restrictions wouldn't provide significant benefit?

Or maybe his reading of the supreme court is that they will strike down ANY widespread vaccine mandate, and thinks it might be more harmful politically to repeatedly lose court cases (and look weak) than to say "I'm trying to stop covid but the conservative supreme court is blocking me".

I would not be surprised if the latter were true. If the supreme court knocks you down once, it's annoying at least. But if they knock you down ten times, people start getting the "if there's smoke there's fire" sense, if they keep doing it they must be onto something.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I would not be surprised if the latter were true. If the supreme court knocks you down once, it's annoying at least. But if they knock you down ten times, people start getting the "if there's smoke there's fire" sense, if they keep doing it they must be onto something.

People are probably going to have to get comfortable speaking plainly about the problem of the right wing controlled supreme court. When they kill/gut Roe, I really hope we don't have to deal with idiotic centrist opinions about how the courts are not partisan.

 

[gnome]

Taking the virus seriously rescued Biden in the election, but public sentiment has shifted. Now people don't want the virus taken seriously anymore.

Which people have changed from appreciating it being taken seriously to not wanting that?

 

[Aridas]

People are probably going to have to get comfortable speaking plainly about the problem of the right wing controlled supreme court. When they kill/gut Roe, I really hope we don't have to deal with idiotic centrist opinions about how the courts are not partisan.

To poke at this a little, I haven't seen as much in the way of arguments that the courts are not partisan so much as arguments that "We can't do THAT because it'll make the courts look partisan!" Generally, that's worth little more than a face palm, as far as I'm concerned. After all, the Supreme Court, right now, really is very partisan and such is the result of a long-running and very partisan campaign to make it quite partisan in favor of the GOP (and their donors). The gasps in horror, especially by Republicans in power, are generally not so much at the courts looking partisan or being partisan so much as the prospect that they might lose some of that unfair and unjust influence that they're happy to abuse. Yeah, I get the concerns about how taking overtly partisan action to help restore sanity are fundamentally problematic, but the current state of things is also quite fundamentally problematic. Choosing the least bad of multiple evils doesn't mean that one thinks that they're choosing a perfect or even necessarily good solution, of course, just the least bad.

 

[Aridas]

Which people have changed from appreciating it being taken seriously to not wanting that?

To this, I think that I'll point out that pandemic fatigue and burnout really are things. Increasing numbers of people really do just want this all to be over. Taking it seriously is one thing. Having to hear about it constantly can grate on nerves.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Just checking in on this clearly stated promise that the President could deliver entirely on their own with the stroke of a pen:

“Under a Biden-Harris administration, we will decriminalize the use of marijuana and automatically expunge all marijuana-use convictions, and end incarceration for drug use alone,” Harris said. “This is no time … for half-steppin’, this is no time for incrementalism. We need to deal with the system, and there needs to be significant change in the design of the system.”

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/kamala-harris-joe-biden-administration-decriminalize-marijuana

How's this one going?

 

[Delvo]

I hadn't ever even heard that one. I had heard Harris laugh/scoff at the absurdity of the idea. So at least the inaction on that subject isn't a letdown.

When I saw your first sentence, I thought the quote was going to be about that case where Biden's Department of Education went to court against a guy with a disability who can't work to stop the judge from eliminating his student debt, and then, when they failed, appealed it. It's true that the monster who's called for this is an employee, not Biden, but he's also a political appointee, by Trump. So it's not as bad as Biden himself pushing for this, but he hasn't stopped it, either, and did he really have no warning sign that the Trump appointee might somehow turn out to be such a monster? Surprise!

 

[Segnosaur]

Just checking in on this clearly stated promise that the President could deliver entirely on their own with the stroke of a pen:
“Under a Biden-Harris administration, we will decriminalize the use of marijuana and automatically expunge all marijuana-use convictions, and end incarceration for drug use alone,” Harris said. “This is no time … for half-steppin’, this is no time for incrementalism. We need to deal with the system, and there needs to be significant change in the design of the system.”

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/kamala-harris-joe-biden-administration-decriminalize-marijuana

Where exactly did your quote (or the referenced article) claim they could make the change with a "stroke of the pen"? The quote said "no time for half stepping", but nothing in there said they would try to do it via executive order (which probably isn't possible, since it would require congress to actually pass legislation.)

Biden might be able to stop prosecution of drug crimes and/or offer blanket pardons, but that would still leave the underlying laws in place. (And I wonder how that 'blanket pardon' would work in cases where a person is jailed for multiple crimes, only one of which involves drugs...)

How's this one going?

There actually seem to be several ongoing legislation proposals being dealt with in congress.

Probably the most significant one is the MORE act. Harris pushed for it in 2019 but it died in a senate committee. But it was reintroduced in 2021.

See: Wikipedia

 

[theprestige]

Where exactly did your quote (or the referenced article) claim they could make the change with a "stroke of the pen"? The quote said "no time for half stepping", but nothing in there said they would try to do it via executive order (which probably isn't possible, since it would require congress to actually pass legislation.)

Biden might be able to stop prosecution of drug crimes and/or offer blanket pardons, but that would still leave the underlying laws in place. (And I wonder how that 'blanket pardon' would work in cases where a person is jailed for multiple crimes, only one of which involves drugs...)

There actually seem to be several ongoing legislation proposals being dealt with in congress.

Probably the most significant one is the MORE act. Harris pushed for it in 2019 but it died in a senate committee. But it was reintroduced in 2021.

See: Wikipedia

The executive branch has always arrogated to itself some leeway in how and when and to what degree it enforces laws and prosecutes criminals. This is largely a matter of resources and priorities. It's become so commonplace now, and so taken for granted, that candidates can now talk openly about playing favorites with the laws as part of their campaign platform.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The executive branch has always arrogated to itself some leeway in how and when and to what degree it enforces laws and prosecutes criminals. This is largely a matter of resources and priorities. It's become so commonplace now, and so taken for granted, that candidates can now talk openly about playing favorites with the laws as part of their campaign platform.

That, and the scheduling of drugs is something that is decided upon by executive agencies. Biden could order federal agencies (DEA, DOJ) to reevaluate the marijuana, which is currently schedule I (the most illegal). Rescheduling it would reduce penalties and allow for prescription use, and descheduling entirely would remove all federal penalties.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655

 

[BobTheCoward]

That, and the scheduling of drugs is something that is decided upon by executive agencies. Biden could order federal agencies (DEA, DOJ) to reevaluate the marijuana, which is currently schedule I (the most illegal). Rescheduling it would reduce penalties and allow for prescription use, and descheduling entirely would remove all federal penalties.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655

But they might agree that the schedule 1 designation is correct. In that case, they would require a law by Congress.

 

[theprestige]

That, and the scheduling of drugs is something that is decided upon by executive agencies. Biden could order federal agencies (DEA, DOJ) to reevaluate the marijuana, which is currently schedule I (the most illegal). Rescheduling it would reduce penalties and allow for prescription use, and descheduling entirely would remove all federal penalties.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655

Good point. So to answer Segnosaur's question, the "stroke of the pen" is inherent in how the authority is distributed between the legislative and executive branches.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Who's impressed by this pablum anymore?

President Biden thanks Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “for being my friend” during National Prayer Breakfast.

“You’ve always done exactly what you’ve said. You’re a man of your word. And you’re a man of honor.”

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1489244091707703306

Glad-handing the man that is routinely making your party look like a bunch of ineffectual losers is a real chump play.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Who's impressed by this pablum anymore?



https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1489244091707703306

Glad-handing the man that is routinely making your party look like a bunch of ineffectual losers is a real chump play.

I agree. Biden isn't one to talk smack, but he shouldn't be making false claims about Mitch being a man of his word or even a good person. Something along the lines of "I'd like to thank Mitch for showing us what the GOP stands for."

 

[Venom]

Who's impressed by this pablum anymore?

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1489244091707703306

Glad-handing the man that is routinely making your party look like a bunch of ineffectual losers is a real chump play.

SMH

 

[theprestige]

Makes me think of an old mafioso, smiling and laughing and shaking another capo's hand, having just secretly ordered a surprise attack on all his competitor's operations. "Keep your enemies closer", and all that. For me it's not really a question of whether anyone is impressed by the pablum, but whether anyone really expects there to be a sharpened dagger behind the silk veil.

 

[Delvo]

It's because he doesn't care about his party or the agenda he pretended was his for a while. They were just tools to get him where he is. What he really cares about is being President and pleasing Republicans.