web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "amendment"

Democrats don’t want red flag laws applied to gang members

Westlake Legal Group Jerry-Nadler Democrats don’t want red flag laws applied to gang members The Blog red flag Ken Buck gun control amendment

The House is staying busy now that the August recess (such as it was) is over. One of the latest items of business was having the House Judiciary Committee approve that new red flag law everyone has been talking about. But they ran into a bit of a snag when Republicans offered an amendment that would have allowed the addition of anyone whose name appears in a law enforcement gang database to the list. Even if that might sound like common sense to you, the Democrats on the committee found reasons to object and defeated the amendment. (Washington Examiner)

House Democrats this week advanced a new measure to encourage states to pass “red flag” laws, known as extreme risk protection orders, that authorize removing guns and ammunition from dangerous individuals.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee amended the measure during a Wednesday mark-up to authorize the federal government to issue extreme risk protection orders in some instances, but they rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member.

“The majority of violent crime, including gun violence, in the United States is linked to gangs,” Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican who sponsored the amendment, said Wednesday. “My amendment is quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was probable cause to include that individual in the database.”

The reason the Democrats gave for objecting to this was that the lists in those gang databases have been found to be inaccurate at times. On the surface, there is a valid complaint about these databases. The one used in Chicago, for example, has been widely criticized for having errors of all sorts. But Republican Congressman Ken Buck, the amendment’s author, pointed out that being in one of those databases wouldn’t automatically trigger the red flag law. It would only apply if there was probable cause.

Republicans also pointed out some of the hypocrisy on display. You may recall that many of these same Democrats held a sit-in to shut down Congress because the GOP didn’t want to pass a “no-fly, no buy” law that would forbid gun ownership for anyone on the terrorist no-fly list. The reason the GOP gave at the time? There were errors in that list as well.

The Democrats countered by saying they would like to add “individuals affiliated with white nationalism.” How precisely are you going to define who is affiliated with “white nationalism?” People show up on gang databases because they commit gang-related crimes. You can be accused of being affiliated with “white nationalism” for writing an op-ed.

Let’s keep in mind the fact that all of this activity is little more than political posturing. Congress isn’t considering a national red-flag law. Even if this measure makes it into law, all it does is allow and encourage the states to pass their own red flag laws. Whether the states choose to do so and how they structure such laws is still entirely up to them.

Further, the gang database amendment is kind of pointless as well. Most of the people who wind up on those lists (not counting those incorrectly added) are there because they’ve already committed crimes. They’re already not supposed to be able to purchase or possess firearms. The problem is they somehow manage to ignore laws like that and carry weapons anyway. (Yes. Shocking, I know.)

Here’s the part of the story that nobody was saying out loud on the House Judiciary Committee, however. Democrats are reluctant to do anything that might be seen as taking harsh action against gang members. The reason is that many in their caucus are still fighting for criminal justice reform, bemoaning the crime bill from the nineties and claiming racism. Many, though not all urban gangs are primarily composed of minorities, so liberals are reluctant to touch the subject even though the vast majority of violent crime in the country is related to gang activity.

But even that is rather weak tea. There are white gangs running meth operations in the south and biker gangs all over the country with few or no minorities. They could have been added as well. That might have pleased the Democrats.

As I said, this entire exercise is a dog and pony show designed to get representatives on the record as to how they voted regarding red flag laws. There’s an election next year, after all.

The post Democrats don’t want red flag laws applied to gang members appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Jerry-Nadler-300x153 Democrats don’t want red flag laws applied to gang members The Blog red flag Ken Buck gun control amendment  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pass the ERA if you like. It doesn’t change anything

Westlake Legal Group suffrage Pass the ERA if you like. It doesn’t change anything Women The Blog suffrage ERA equal rights amendment

If you feel like you’re having a flashback to the 70s this week, you’re not alone. It might be because the Equal Rights Amendment is back in the news yet again. Why there’s been a renewed interest in this subject remains something of a mystery, but Time Magazine published a lengthy analysis over the weekend, complete with a history of the proposed amendment and how it might still be passed. Their analysis could use some work, however, and that becomes obvious just from reading the title: The U.S. Constitution Doesn’t Guarantee Equal Rights for Women. Here’s Why.

When American women won the right to vote — a milestone commemorated on Women’s Equality Day, which marks the anniversary of the Aug. 26, 1920 certification that the 19th Amendment had been ratified — it was just one part of an even larger fight for equality. From Mary Church Terrell’s endeavors to make sure African-American women were included in the fight for suffrage, to Margaret Sanger’s work to promote access to birth control, to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s efforts to eliminate sex discrimination in the law, women before and after that day in 1920 have fought for wider rights.

And yet, the U.S. Constitution does not say that people are equal regardless of their sex.

That last sentence might be at least a little bit closer to the truth if it had said that the Constitution doesn’t specifically say that people are equal regardless of their sex. What it actually says, courtesy of the 14th Amendment is that all citizens, both natural-born and naturalized are equal in that no state shall pass any law abridging any of their rights.

So unless you don’t think women are human beings capable of qualifying for citizenship, we’ve already got that covered. But don’t let me dampen your enthusiasm. If people still want to pass the ERA the way it’s currently written, feel free.

But how would that happen? That’s the part where the Time article actually might be worth reading. First of all, there are 37 states that have ratified the amendment to date and only one more would be required to put it into effect… in theory. it was originally passed by Congress in 1972 with a deadline for getting the states on board set for 1979. That year they extended the deadline to 1982, but they were still stuck at 35 states.

Two more states, Nevada and Illinois, ratified the amendment in 2017 and 2018 respectively. But that was decades after the deadline, so does that even count? How do you get around the fact that the deadline is long since passed? It sounds like you might have to start over from scratch.

But Time quotes a legal expert (who conveniently enough works for the ERA Coalition) as saying that they might just be able to ignore the deadline. She lists a few reasons, starting with the fact that there nothing about the deadline in the language of the amendment itself. It’s true that four of the amendments passed since the original Bill of Rights had deadlines built into them and the rest did not. But they also didn’t exclude the possibility of Congress setting deadlines.

She then goes on to say that the Constitution doesn’t set any deadlines for the passage of amendments. This much is true, but it also doesn’t forbid having deadlines imposed. The original deadline was set (and extended) via joint resolutions of Congress. If their claim is that the deadline is unconstitutional by virtue of not being mentioned in the original document, why did nobody challenge it?

Her final point sounds like a bit more of a stretch. She notes that the Constitution says “one Congress can’t bind a future Congress.” Yes, but that doesn’t mean that a future Congress can simply ignore the work done by the previous ones or else we’d have to replay every law on the books every two years. At a minimum, it seems like they would need a new joint resolution invalidating the one from 1982.

So is it possible? I suppose it might be, but there would no doubt be legal challenges flowing like water and the courts might have to sort that mess out. But as I said above, if people really want to pass it, feel free. You won’t hear me objecting. But given the wording of the ERA, I fail to see how it changes anything unless you’re planning on reading all sorts of dangling penumbras into it. Oh, wait… I see. That’s exactly what you’re planning to do. (Emphasis added)

Advocates say that the amendment is held back by the sense among some people that it’s not necessary, but proponents argue that it could strengthen the legal basis for combating violence against women, pay inequality and maternity leave.

Meanwhile, some contemporary opponents argue the amendment could have more of an impact than they’d want, for example leading to the striking down of laws that restrict access to abortion.

I hope it doesn’t lead to bringing back prohibition, because I could use a stiff drink after reading all of that.

The post Pass the ERA if you like. It doesn’t change anything appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group suffrage-300x153 Pass the ERA if you like. It doesn’t change anything Women The Blog suffrage ERA equal rights amendment  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pass the ERA if you like. It doesn’t change anything

Westlake Legal Group suffrage Pass the ERA if you like. It doesn’t change anything Women The Blog suffrage ERA equal rights amendment

If you feel like you’re having a flashback to the 70s this week, you’re not alone. It might be because the Equal Rights Amendment is back in the news yet again. Why there’s been a renewed interest in this subject remains something of a mystery, but Time Magazine published a lengthy analysis over the weekend, complete with a history of the proposed amendment and how it might still be passed. Their analysis could use some work, however, and that becomes obvious just from reading the title: The U.S. Constitution Doesn’t Guarantee Equal Rights for Women. Here’s Why.

When American women won the right to vote — a milestone commemorated on Women’s Equality Day, which marks the anniversary of the Aug. 26, 1920 certification that the 19th Amendment had been ratified — it was just one part of an even larger fight for equality. From Mary Church Terrell’s endeavors to make sure African-American women were included in the fight for suffrage, to Margaret Sanger’s work to promote access to birth control, to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s efforts to eliminate sex discrimination in the law, women before and after that day in 1920 have fought for wider rights.

And yet, the U.S. Constitution does not say that people are equal regardless of their sex.

That last sentence might be at least a little bit closer to the truth if it had said that the Constitution doesn’t specifically say that people are equal regardless of their sex. What it actually says, courtesy of the 14th Amendment is that all citizens, both natural-born and naturalized are equal in that no state shall pass any law abridging any of their rights.

So unless you don’t think women are human beings capable of qualifying for citizenship, we’ve already got that covered. But don’t let me dampen your enthusiasm. If people still want to pass the ERA the way it’s currently written, feel free.

But how would that happen? That’s the part where the Time article actually might be worth reading. First of all, there are 37 states that have ratified the amendment to date and only one more would be required to put it into effect… in theory. it was originally passed by Congress in 1972 with a deadline for getting the states on board set for 1979. That year they extended the deadline to 1982, but they were still stuck at 35 states.

Two more states, Nevada and Illinois, ratified the amendment in 2017 and 2018 respectively. But that was decades after the deadline, so does that even count? How do you get around the fact that the deadline is long since passed? It sounds like you might have to start over from scratch.

But Time quotes a legal expert (who conveniently enough works for the ERA Coalition) as saying that they might just be able to ignore the deadline. She lists a few reasons, starting with the fact that there nothing about the deadline in the language of the amendment itself. It’s true that four of the amendments passed since the original Bill of Rights had deadlines built into them and the rest did not. But they also didn’t exclude the possibility of Congress setting deadlines.

She then goes on to say that the Constitution doesn’t set any deadlines for the passage of amendments. This much is true, but it also doesn’t forbid having deadlines imposed. The original deadline was set (and extended) via joint resolutions of Congress. If their claim is that the deadline is unconstitutional by virtue of not being mentioned in the original document, why did nobody challenge it?

Her final point sounds like a bit more of a stretch. She notes that the Constitution says “one Congress can’t bind a future Congress.” Yes, but that doesn’t mean that a future Congress can simply ignore the work done by the previous ones or else we’d have to replay every law on the books every two years. At a minimum, it seems like they would need a new joint resolution invalidating the one from 1982.

So is it possible? I suppose it might be, but there would no doubt be legal challenges flowing like water and the courts might have to sort that mess out. But as I said above, if people really want to pass it, feel free. You won’t hear me objecting. But given the wording of the ERA, I fail to see how it changes anything unless you’re planning on reading all sorts of dangling penumbras into it. Oh, wait… I see. That’s exactly what you’re planning to do. (Emphasis added)

Advocates say that the amendment is held back by the sense among some people that it’s not necessary, but proponents argue that it could strengthen the legal basis for combating violence against women, pay inequality and maternity leave.

Meanwhile, some contemporary opponents argue the amendment could have more of an impact than they’d want, for example leading to the striking down of laws that restrict access to abortion.

I hope it doesn’t lead to bringing back prohibition, because I could use a stiff drink after reading all of that.

The post Pass the ERA if you like. It doesn’t change anything appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group suffrage-300x153 Pass the ERA if you like. It doesn’t change anything Women The Blog suffrage ERA equal rights amendment  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ten years after he became VP, news outlets decide Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy

Westlake Legal Group b-14 Ten years after he became VP, news outlets decide Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy Vice The Blog President Obama Media kamala harris constitutional busing biden amendment

The response here will be that “news outlets” didn’t decide anything. Kamala Harris decided that Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy and made major national news by attacking him for it at the debate. And the only reason Harris attacked, she would say, is because Joe Biden decided to stupidly tout his cordial relations with segregationists like James Eastland as a young senator a few weeks earlier. Straight-line cause and effect: Biden made himself sound soft on segregation, Harris saw an opportunity in that and used his stance on busing to litigate the point, and the media simply followed up by looking into what Biden’s said about busing in the past. For instance, here’s NPR spelunking through its archives yesterday to find Biden circa 1975 in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban busing:

ENSOR: What about a constitutional amendment, I asked Biden. Isn’t that what you’re going to end up supporting if you want to stop court ordered busing too?

BIDEN: That would clearly do it. We are trying to figure out whether or not we can come up with an innovative piece of legislation which would limit the remedy and I don’t honestly don’t know whether we can come up with something constitutional. And if we can’t I will not in an attempt to eliminate busing violate the Constitution. I won’t do that. The only way if I’m going to go at it, I’m going to go at it through a constitutional amendment if it can’t be done through a piece of legislation.

Today it’s CNN that’s digging through its own tapes to find Biden saying in 1981 that busing is “the least effective remedy” to segregation:

But the 1981 CNN interview illustrates that Biden’s objections to busing to end segregation in schools were much broader than he casts them today.

“I happen to be one of those so-called people that are labeled as a liberal on civil rights, but oppose busing,” Biden said. “And I support the effort to curtail the ability of courts to bus.”

“What I have argued as one who grew up in the civil rights movement and ran for office as a public defender and a member of an active participant in civil rights cases, I have argued that the least effective remedy to be imposed is the busing remedy,” Biden said at another point in the interview.

Don’t blame NPR and CNN for making this newsworthy, blame Harris and ultimately Biden — or so the defense goes. But that’s too pat. For one thing, stories about Biden’s record on busing were trickling into the media long before he made his comments about Eastland a few weeks ago. Here’s WaPo in March serving notice to the political world that This Will Be An Issue. CNN was on the busing beat in April. Biden’s allies in Congress were being challenged about his record on busing in May. The subject has turned up in mainstream sites’ op-ed pages as well. And of course various progressive activists have been jabbing at him online over it for months, hoping to dent the centrist Biden’s support among Obama’s base of black voters.

The deeper question is why Biden’s record on busing and other racial issues, like the crime bill, weren’t “problematic” to the media when he was nominated for vice president in 2008. Overlooking racial politics that year might have been understandable, if not excusable, had the candidates been uniformly white. They were not, rather famously. Race was front and center in that year’s presidential election in a way that it had never been before in the entirety of American history. And Joe Biden ended up on the ballot of that election, on the winning side thanks to historic turnout among African-American voters. It would have been asking too much to ask the media to delve into Biden’s racial record after he’d already been named VP, as our very impartial press wasn’t about to create a headache for Obama en route to a likely victory. But what’s the excuse for not investigating Biden’s — and every other VP hopeful’s — civil-rights credentials in depth while the party’s first black nominee was mulling whom to choose as his running mate?

Did Team Obama, at least, do that investigation? Vice presidents are normally vetted within an inch of their lives before being selected. Presumably O and his team knew all about Biden’s view of busing, the crime bill, and so on and determined that they were collectively not so problematic that they should look elsewhere for a running mate. But the media was free to render a different verdict, as it’s now in the process of doing, and to challenge Obama aggressively on it. They didn’t. And it’s no mystery why.

I think the most charitable explanation for this oversight is simple laziness. They didn’t give Biden the kid-gloves treatment in 2008 because they were in the tank and determined not to make trouble for a historic Democratic nominee, one might say. They gave him the kid-gloves treatment because they don’t do much investigating themselves, even of their own archives. Even this year, it may be the case that most of the media reports about Biden’s history with busing have been spoonfed to them by rival campaigns like Sanders’s or Harris’s. The reason Uncle Joe didn’t get dinged for this a decade ago might be as simple as the RNC’s oppo team having either dropped the ball or concluded that there was little to be gained by feeding the press stories about Biden’s opposition to busing (a position overwhelmingly shared by Republicans). But again: If you prefer this theory, you’re stuck believing that the press is uninterested in doing the basics of its own job, even when there are potentially high-stakes consequences in a national election.

There is, I suppose, another possibility. Maybe America’s just woker now than it was in 2008, when it, uh, elected the first black president. Certainly the white progressive activist class is more influential and more ostentatiously woke than it was then, and our very impartial media pays a lot of attention to that class. So do candidates, which I suppose explains why Kamala Harris is claiming to be pro-busing even in 2019:

Here’s what national polls on busing look like, though, at least circa 1999:

Westlake Legal Group b-15 Ten years after he became VP, news outlets decide Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy Vice The Blog President Obama Media kamala harris constitutional busing biden amendment

NPR notes that a Gallup poll taken in 1973, back when Biden was in full anti-busing swing, found that just five percent thought busing was the best way to achieve integration, including a mere nine percent of blacks. I think the partisan split would be *somewhat* more balanced today since the subject of busing is now largely academic and hyper-partisanship has encouraged people to support whatever it is that the other party opposes. But unquestionably, Biden’s position is still the position of a heavy majority. It’s probably also the position of a majority of the Democratic Party. But whether it’s the position of a majority of black Democrats is an open question. And in the end, black Democrats are the key to whether Biden or Harris is the frontrunner in this race.

Here’s a very cynical Cory Booker, the odd man out in the Biden/Harris battle for black voters, doing his best to muscle his way in. It is … quite a theory that Uncle Joe, the person in the race with the most obvious appeal to both working-class Rust Belt whites and southern black Obama voters, is the candidate who has a problem bringing people together while Kamala Harris is out there demanding that America relitigate busing.

The post Ten years after he became VP, news outlets decide Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-14-300x153 Ten years after he became VP, news outlets decide Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy Vice The Blog President Obama Media kamala harris constitutional busing biden amendment  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Meghan McCain on Biden’s Hyde flip-flop: “I feel slighted as someone who was open to him being president”

Westlake Legal Group mm-1 Meghan McCain on Biden’s Hyde flip-flop: “I feel slighted as someone who was open to him being president” The Blog Pro-Life pro-choice Meghan McCain hyde biden amendment Abortion

Interesting choice of the past tense there. Sooooo … no McCain family endorsement then, or what?

Her point here is well taken, and in fact I made a version of it myself on Friday. Why would Biden pander to the left on Hyde knowing that he’ll never be the left’s top choice? You can’t out-progressive Bernie Sanders, says Meg, so why try? Stick to the center instead. But let me play devil’s advocate: Sometimes candidates need to pander to their base even if everyone involved knows it’s insincere. Look no further than Trump, a guy who’s been sold since the day he announced his candidacy in 2015 as the ultimate straight-talking tell-it-like-it-is anti-politician. He’s brash, he’s bold — he’ll give you his unvarnished view and never dream of apologizing for it.

But that’s nonsense. Trump is a hardcore base-panderer on all of the right’s tribal cultural sensitivities. Is an ex-Democrat TV star who was born and raised in New York City, became (in)famous for enjoying the good life, and indicated virtually no knowledge of and little interest in religion until he ran for president actually strongly pro-life, pro-gun, and cool to LGBT rights? Of course not. God only knows how he really feels about those issues, and God only knows how the average evangelical Christian Republican voter imagines how Trump really feels about those issues. But he had the basic good sense when he ran for the GOP nomination to grasp which issues he could cross the base on and which he couldn’t. At best, his right-wing orthodoxy on social issues is sincere; at worst, it’s a tacit bargain with cultural conservatives that he’ll govern their way on “values” matters if they let him govern his way on the stuff he really cares about, i.e. protectionism and isolationism.

Biden’s sending the same signal with his Hyde flip-flop. He’s saying to the left that even if they find his newfound opposition to the amendment insincere, which it is, they’re not taking a risk on key cultural sensitivities by electing him. He’s not going to go full Bernie on economics (I think) but he’ll throw progressives a bone on abortion to show them that he’ll govern the way they want on matters that are “beyond politics,” so to speak. Also, this must be borne in mind: Although the conventional wisdom has it that leftists despise Biden, polling shows that it’s just not true. Whether by dint of pure name recognition or for more substantive reasons, he’s highly competitive among self-described “liberals” in surveys. He actually led Bernie Sanders, 25/24, among that group in CNN’s latest. In Quinnipiac’s recent poll of Texas, Biden was second among self-described “very liberal” Democrats, trailing Elizabeth Warren and ahead of Bernie again by a point. He really might have damaged himself in the competition for those voters if he’d stuck with Hyde. Whereas centrist Dems who may have preferred that he stuck with Hyde find themselves today in a tough position: Until Beto or Klobuchar or some other “moderate” shows signs of breaking out, Biden’s the only game in town.

As much as I admire Meg’s commitment to the pro-life cause, the reality is that if we end up with a Trump/Biden race abortion will matter only in the accustomed way, as a subsidiary issue in considering which Supreme Court appointments each candidate might make. The Hyde Amendment isn’t going anywhere until Democrats have total control of government again, and maybe not even then. By the time we get to the general election, the country will be consumed by the many wounds Biden’s record sustained during the primaries and the many, many new petty outrages Trump will have committed between now and then. McCain’s not going to passively endorse four more years of Trump by staying home just because Uncle Joe took a new position on a law that’s not going to change anyway.

The post Meghan McCain on Biden’s Hyde flip-flop: “I feel slighted as someone who was open to him being president” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group mm-1-300x159 Meghan McCain on Biden’s Hyde flip-flop: “I feel slighted as someone who was open to him being president” The Blog Pro-Life pro-choice Meghan McCain hyde biden amendment Abortion  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Biden advisor: His latest flip-flop on the Hyde Amendment isn’t really a flip-flop

Westlake Legal Group ss Biden advisor: His latest flip-flop on the Hyde Amendment isn’t really a flip-flop The Blog taxpayer symone sanders hyde funds biden amendment Abortion

He’s the same man today as he’s always been, Symone Sanders insists. A man who has personal beliefs about abortion but who can’t justify “locking women out” of coverage based on their zip code.

Well, says CNN’s Jim Sciutto, he seemed pretty okay with locking them out for the past 43 years.

So, you see, there does appear to be something of a shift here.

Sanders is doing her best to play a bad hand, essentially arguing that Biden retains deep misgivings about taxpayer-funded abortion but has been persuaded that the interest of lower-income women in being able to afford an abortion if they need one takes precedence. Among the people who helped persuade Biden of that, according to the Atlantic, was Sanders herself. Oh, and … Alyssa Milano?

This was a tense two days in Biden’s D.C. headquarters. The candidate was caught off guard after an NBC News story published Wednesday morning attempted to nail down where he stands on abortion policy—specifically Hyde. Symone Sanders, one of Biden’s senior advisers, confronted him, she confirmed to me Thursday night, telling Biden that he was missing how his position disproportionately affected poorer women and women of color without easy access to abortion. Alyssa Milano, the actress who’s become a major online presence on issues of women’s rights as well as a friend of the Biden team, spoke by phone Wednesday to Biden campaign manager Greg Schultz, telling him the candidate needed to change. More calls came in, more tough conversations…

Biden’s aides say they don’t want this to be seen as a political move, but as a thoughtful evolution squeezed into a frantic Wednesday and Thursday. The official Biden campaign line is that changing his position proves he’s acting on principle. “Vice President Biden’s honesty and candor are big reasons why his candidacy is resonating all across the country. Voters respond to his authenticity, and want a president with values that are nothing like the current occupant of the White House,” said Biden campaign press secretary T.J. Ducklo in a prepared statement.

“A thoughtful evolution squeezed into a few days” is the best Orwellian euphemism I’ve ever heard for a cowardly reversal born of rank political expedience. Milano’s weird cameo is icing on the cake. It’s like finding out that George H.W. Bush was consulting with Tony Danza in the run-up to the first Gulf War.

Maybe we can get Trump to reverse on those Mexico tariffs if Danny Pintauro puts in a good word.

Among many other reasons why it was foolish for Biden to reverse himself, notes Ramesh Ponnuru, is how it weakens a potential attack on Trump over abortion next year:

First, it puts Biden on the unpopular side of the issue. Advocates of taxpayer funding can point to polls saying that most people support abortion — but that’s true only when the polls have been worded not to mention taxpayer funding. A 2016 poll that clarified it was asking about Medicaid paying for abortions found that 58 percent of the public opposed it.

Second, it means that the Democratic nominee will find it more difficult to portray Republicans as far right on abortion.

Republican opponents are on the wrong side of public opinion on several questions about the issue. Most people say they would like to see Roe v. Wade survive, for example. If Biden had stuck with his opposition to taxpayer funding and won the nomination, he might have been able to draw a contrast between his own moderation and the Republicans’ extremism. But the Democrats have now drawn more attention than ever before to a question where they’re the ones who want a big change in abortion policy that most people oppose.

The most one can say for Uncle Joe here is that he’s a captive of a party that’s become fanatic about this issue. He supported the Hyde Amendment as long as he could do so while remaining electorally viable, through nearly four decades in the Senate and nearly a full decade as VP. In 2019, though, the Democratic Party view of abortion is “no limits,” full stop. And they’re invested enough in it that the so-called most electable candidate in the field concluded that he’d no longer be electable if he didn’t pander.

Exit question: Under the Symone Sanders standard, when would a politician ever be guilty of a flip-flop? If a reversal as quick and cynical as Biden’s can be spun as a matter of considered persuasion and evolution over time, is even the reptilian Kirsten Gillibrand guilty of flip-flopping?

The post Biden advisor: His latest flip-flop on the Hyde Amendment isn’t really a flip-flop appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group ss-300x159 Biden advisor: His latest flip-flop on the Hyde Amendment isn’t really a flip-flop The Blog taxpayer symone sanders hyde funds biden amendment Abortion  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

AOC to Biden: Don’t call yourself a progressive if you support the Hyde Amendment

Westlake Legal Group a AOC to Biden: Don’t call yourself a progressive if you support the Hyde Amendment young turks The Blog taxpayer Pro-Life pro-choice hyde funding biden axelrod amendment Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Abortion

Good news for her, I guess: As of about 16 hours ago, he no longer supports it. But check back in an hour, because he might have another position by then.

This episode reminds me at first blush of when Trump said during the 2016 primaries that he’d support some form of legal punishment for women who attempt to abort if and when the practice is banned, only to retreat immediately after pro-life groups informed him that that’s not their position. But that’s not really the right analogy to Biden’s reversal on Hyde. Trump’s episode appeared to be a case of him failing what Charles Cooke called an “ideological Turing Test”: He’s not really a social conservative and doesn’t understand why social conservatives believe what they believe so he tried to imitate one by articulating a position he assumed they held. Once he found out that they didn’t, he regrouped hastily.

Having been a senator for nearly 40 years and a VP for eight, Biden knows perfectly well what progressives believe on abortion. And unlike Trump, he didn’t err by going further on his base’s pet issue than the base itself was willing to go. He committed the more familiar centrist error of being unwilling to go as far as they wanted to, siding with pro-lifers on the Hyde Amendment before reversing himself under pressure from the left. All of which is a long way of saying that Trump’s flip-flop was somewhat understandable, borne of ignorance, whereas Biden’s is completely farking mystifying. He knows this issue. He knows that it’s litmus-test material for progressives. He also has a very specific strategy for winning the primaries, which is to let the rest of the field split the left while he runs to the center. Whether to stick with the Hyde Amendment was a tough call for him in that he had to decide whether to fail a lefty litmus test and stay true to his centrist strategy by sticking to his traditional position or to try to pass the litmus test by reversing on it and inevitably be accused by rivals of changing his beliefs for political expedience. There’d be some pain involved in either approach, but that’s politics.

What seems inexplicable to me is trying out both approaches in the span of 24 hours, guaranteeing that he won’t reap any benefits from either. Remaining momentarily pro-Hyde confirms progressives’ suspicions that he’s a squishy apostate at heart, never mind his subsequent reversal. Flipping to anti-Hyde confirms to centrists that he can be bullied into leftist positions by the left if he’s elected, which defeats the whole point of nominating him if you’re a Democrat who’s worried about socialism taking over the party. And of course, the reversal feeds public perceptions that Biden’s a bad campaigner and a guy who takes way too long to make up his mind, as we saw most recently in his endless “should I or shouldn’t I?” deliberations about whether to announce. All he had to do here was pick one position or another, adopt it early, and stick to it. Instead, this. What on earth was he thinking?

Now it’s open season:

A few days ago David Byler of WaPo called Biden “the Democratic Mitt Romney,” comparing his position in the 2020 field to Mitt’s position in the 2012 field. It may be, argued Byler, that Democratic voters end up “trying on” various other candidates by lifting them to frontrunner status in the polls before eventually returning to Biden as the safe choice, which is what happened to Romney seven years ago. The analogy goes beyond that, though: Romney also had a rap for flip-flopping that made the base suspicious of him in 2012, so much so that he felt obliged to stand behind his RomneyCare plan in Massachusetts rather than commit the mother of all flip-flops and denounce it in the name of proving that he opposed ObamaCare. Biden could have done something like that in the case of the Hyde Amendment, saying, “I’m pro-choice but I respect Americans’ sensitivities about this and would rather the practice be funded without federal dollars, as I’ve always believed.” He chose to cave instead. What now?

Here’s AOC followed by the chief strategist for Obama/Biden 2008 warning Uncle Joe that he’s made a mistake here.

The post AOC to Biden: Don’t call yourself a progressive if you support the Hyde Amendment appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group a-300x159 AOC to Biden: Don’t call yourself a progressive if you support the Hyde Amendment young turks The Blog taxpayer Pro-Life pro-choice hyde funding biden axelrod amendment Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Abortion  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com