The Biden Presidency - 2020

[miked]

Interesting, had no idea a judge could overrule the FDA. What if some judge somewhere decides antibiotics should be pulled from FDA approval...

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by miked

Interesting, had no idea a judge could overrule the FDA. What if some judge somewhere decides antibiotics should be pulled from FDA approval...

gotta pull those AIDS drugs because of all the sinning.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

Interesting, had no idea a judge could overrule the FDA. What if some judge somewhere decides antibiotics should be pulled from FDA approval...

Up until yesterday, they couldn't. First time it's happened and it's unprecedented. Just making up new rules as they go along.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Up until yesterday, they couldn't. First time it's happened and it's unprecedented. Just making up new rules as they go along.

They can do it now because he cited Wikipedia in his decision. You know it's locked in now.

[larrymcg421]

What are we even talking about here? I hate the ruling, but it's pretty basic constitutional law that judicial review includes actions of the executive branch, which would include the FDA.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What are we even talking about here? I hate the ruling, but it's pretty basic constitutional law that judicial review includes actions of the executive branch, which would include the FDA.

This doesn't seem like judicial review though, he's making new laws up (or changing existing ones).

There is a process for withdrawing a drug from FDA approval. It was written by Congress. That's the law that the FDA has to follow. So for the FDA to revoke approval of the drug, they would have to violate federal law.

It sounds like he would have the right to demand the FDA start the congressionally approved process of removing a drug. But that's not what his ruling says. It demands the FDA break the law. I think that's why it's seen as unprecedented. And this doesn't even mention the fact the plaintiffs have no standing in the case.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This doesn't seem like judicial review though, he's making new laws up (or changing existing ones).

There is a process for withdrawing a drug from FDA approval. It was written by Congress. That's the law that the FDA has to follow. So for the FDA to revoke approval of the drug, they would have to violate federal law.

It sounds like he would have the right to demand the FDA start the congressionally approved process of removing a drug. But that's not what his ruling says. It demands the FDA break the law. I think that's why it's seen as unprecedented. And this doesn't even mention the fact the plaintiffs have no standing in the case.

It sounds like (from the snippets of the ruling I've been able to find) that he's arguing the approval process didn't follow the law passed by Congress because it disregarded safety concerns that the FDA is supposed to follow. Again, I disagree with that take, but it is still judicial review. Also, the ruling hasn't taken effect yet, because (as is standard practice) he gave the government time to appeal the ruling.

Either way, the main reason I responded is because people were saying a federal judge couldn't overrule the FDA. They can review and overrule any action taken by the executive branch.

[PilotMan]

He gave them 7 days.

trump has until December over election financing fraud.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

He gave them 7 days.

trump has until December over election financing fraud.

I imagine that they'll file for an injunction pending appeal with the Court of Appeals. They probably already have it ready.

And we could argue whether 7 days is enough time or not, but certainly we can agree that appeals of a final ruling in a federal district court should be handled differently than the time between an arraignment and next action in a local criminal defense case.

Again, I hate the ruling, but some of the arguments being presented here are nonsensical and/or dangerous. SCOTUS has no power to remove one of their own members (I can't believe anyone thinks this would be a good idea.) Judicial review clearly covers the FDA as part of the executive branch. And the President should not ignore a Supreme Court ruling. That would set a terrible precedent for the future.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, let's get some progressive-learning judges to start judicially reviewing some of the bullshit put in place by the Trump administration.

[Brian Swartz]

I rarely agree with larrymcg421 on much constitutional, but 100% with him here.

I'm for impeachment investigation at least on Thomas, but if a public official is misusing their office they should be impeached, and that's a Congressional act. Congress won't do it? Well, that's the choice of the people who elected people there.

We have a very long history of ignoring the proper channels on this stuff as a nation, but if we just start openly saying - not just as opinion but in terms what the government should actually do - that the law means what we think it means, not what a judge or justice thinks it means, then we can't get upset about democracy being under attack because we are forthrightly participating in said attack ourselves. We have a process to follow. Remove public officials that abuse their power, and if necessary re-enact whatever laws were 'wrongfully' overturned.

[RainMaker]

Many of these judges were put in by individuals who received less votes and confirmed by a body of politicians in the Senate that received less vote. The judicial system is as far removed from a democracy as you get. Not really what I would argue in defense.

[RainMaker]

And yes there are ways to remove Thomas, but he also broke the law and should be charged with those crimes like other citizens are.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure this is it, but there has to be a point where it's preferable to ignore a court order. If this same judge said the election didn't count would we still need to honor the decision? What if a liberal judge made guns illegal? There has to be a line somewhere.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

Many of these judges were put in by individuals who received less votes and confirmed by a body of politicians in the Senate that received less vote. The judicial system is as far removed from a democracy as you get.

There are many ways in which it could be further removed from democracy, but what I'm talking about is the way the term is commonly used. It's not the right meaning IMO, but I've given up arguing about it on this forum and have adopted the convention. When I refer to attacking or defending democracy, I'm talking about not the US form of government, which of course is technically a republic with democracy as the primary but not sole driver, and all the baggage that goes with those distinctions.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It sounds like (from the snippets of the ruling I've been able to find) that he's arguing the approval process didn't follow the law passed by Congress because it disregarded safety concerns that the FDA is supposed to follow. Again, I disagree with that take, but it is still judicial review. Also, the ruling hasn't taken effect yet, because (as is standard practice) he gave the government time to appeal the ruling.

Either way, the main reason I responded is because people were saying a federal judge couldn't overrule the FDA. They can review and overrule any action taken by the executive branch.

Here is my question for you and Brian. Do you think the judge really believes that the FDA did not vet this drug properly? Do you think the judge believes that this drug that has been on the market for 23 year is a danger to the public?

I'm not trying to start anything. I'm just asking if you think the judge believes those things or if you think he just came up with a reason to throw out a drug he doesn't like being available.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If this same judge said the election didn't count would we still need to honor the decision? What if a liberal judge made guns illegal? There has to be a line somewhere.

If a ruling that extravagant is not over-ruled by a higher court, that means you have a majority of SCOTUS on that side of the issue. There certainly are no perfect safeguards as we've seen, and our government is a disaster (though no worse than we deserve). But to make a ruling like that stick you need justices appointed and confirmed under multiple Presidents and Senates to uphold it, and not enough opposition to throw them out and re-enact a better law. In other words, a large degree of 'people are ok with this happening' is required.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is my question for you and Brian. Do you think the judge really believes that the FDA did not vet this drug properly? Do you think the judge believes that this drug that has been on the market for 23 year is a danger to the public?

You probably won't like this answer, but it's an honest one; I don't presume to know and don't particularly care. I do my best to evaluate public officials - and others in my personal life for that matter - based on their actions which I can know if I care enough to get the available facts, not their motives which I can never know but only guess at.

There are many SCOTUS cases over the past century where I think it's hard to make a good argument for them constitutionally. We'd almost certainly disagree on which ones those are, and I don't think it's productive to go down that road, but I would say that justices have made the arguments and votes they have for a variety of reasons. Some of them good, others not. I consider it an element of good citizenship not to assume motivations going beyond what they've written, but to deal with the facts as they are known - otherwhise I'm going to presume bad motives for a lot of the people I disagree with, and the same will happen for those who think differently, but that is not only unfair to the public servants involved but also just is basically running round chasing your tail. I just don't think it accomplishes anything.

[JPhillips]

So if SCOTUS says, we'll leave the injunction in place and put this on the calendar maybe for June maybe next year, people should just accept that this is the system?

I don't think they'll do that, but it certainly would fit with how this court has handled things procedurally. Personally, I don't think a district court judge should be able to institute a national injunction, but there's no way the GOP will accept that.

[Brian Swartz]

I would say in that case the problem isn't primarily the system, but the people in it. What I think the people should do is examine their votes and consider voting differently and valuing things like integrity and statesmanship above blind party loyalty, just as one way of phrasing it.

Do I think that would happen? Of course not. Every once in a while this kind of subject comes up on the forum, and I guess as an aside here I really do understand the frustration with our government. As i've said before Biden is the first Democrat I've ever voted for - third-party the previous couple of elections - and I don't think he'll be the last given our trajectory. He has not made me proud of my vote to date, but I'd still unquestionably vote for him again if I had the chance to do it over.

To me it just comes down to the fact that when you have government of,by,and for the people, then that's who is to blame. At least up to now we do still have that with some notable hiccups and aberrations, but in the large scheme it's very much still there. Percentage-wise it would not take a permanent shift very large to give one party or another the ability to do whatever we think they should. But the people don't really want that. They want, more than anything else, politicians who lie,cheat,steal,whatever else they have to do so the 'right' policies are enacted. We're far more concerned with party platforms than we are with the rule of law. We shouldn't be surprised when politicians give us that.

[larrymcg421]

Here is my question for you and Brian. Do you think the judge really believes that the FDA did not vet this drug properly? Do you think the judge believes that this drug that has been on the market for 23 year is a danger to the public?

I mean even if I didn't, I'm not sure what worth there is exploring that unless you think decisions to enforce rulings should be based on an examination of what the justice really means rather than their written ruling.

I mean, your previous language about making or changing law is a constant conservative argument used against SCOTUS rulings on gay marriage and other civil rights issues. Those rulings still got enforced. Non-enforcement of judicial orders is a dark path to go down.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not sure this is it, but there has to be a point where it's preferable to ignore a court order. If this same judge said the election didn't count would we still need to honor the decision? What if a liberal judge made guns illegal? There has to be a line somewhere.

Sure, there's a line somewhere, but I don't think you can draw that line unless all options have been exhausted, which means at least going to SCOTUS. And when that line is drawn, prepare to never have another liberal ruling enforced ever again.

[JPhillips]

I think you wait and see what happens in terms of the stay being active, but if SCOTUS leaves it in place or says it's up to an appeals court and they leave it in place it's inevitable that states ignore this. One district court judge making national policy in clear opposition to the majority of the population is not going to just be accepted because that's what the rules say.

This is the general problem with the GOP right now. Minority rule will not be accepted forever even if it follows the rules.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think you wait and see what happens in terms of the stay being active, but if SCOTUS leaves it in place or says it's up to an appeals court and they leave it in place it's inevitable that states ignore this. One district court judge making national policy in clear opposition to the majority of the population is not going to just be accepted because that's what the rules say.

This is the general problem with the GOP right now. Minority rule will not be accepted forever even if it follows the rules.

The wife and I were discussing this the other day. I do think if the GOP continues to push minority opinions on the people you will see push back at the state level. She's afraid of the precedent that sets, but this is where we're at with a SC that doesn't reflect the makeup or the beliefs of the population.

The SC desperately needs reform. I don't know what the answer is there, but if rulings continue to favor the minority we risk the court as a whole being seen as ineffective and illegitimate.

The judicial system is also broken at the state level. As it stands the GOP can take cases directly to Kacsmaryk and a couple other Texas judges and know how he's going to rule. Your only course of action is then to get in front of the equally biased 5th circuit and then the SC. Judge shopping shouldn't be much less encouraged but it's where we are.

[flere-imsaho]

Reading through the Texas' Trump-appointed judge's judgment, it appears the objections to mifepristone fall into two buckets. The first is that the FDA improperly used its "accelerated approval" process. The second is that the FDA ignored supposedly-legitimate safety concerns in the 20 years post-approval (and potentially pre-approval).

Both assertions are so false that in a rational world they would call into question the Trump-appointed judge's faculty for rational thought.

First, despite the name, "accelerated approval" is merely an alternate process the FDA can use in special situations to, indeed, accelerate approval by accepting, say, a shorter trial process. But the process also allows the FDA to go the other way, and require much more for its approval criteria, including, critically, post-approval restrictions on sale & distribution.

The typical time for the FDA's approval process (once trials are complete) is roughly 10 months. The FDA in this case took 54 months to grant approval. And once it did, it imposed significant restrictions on prescription, sale, and distribution.

So, for the first bucket, the judge (or, more likely, the anti-choice lobbying groups known to have lobbied for him), misunderstood what "accelerated approval" means.


The second complaint is that the FDA ignored legitimate safety concerns in the 20 years post-approval. This seems to rest on claims from specific "medical" groups funded by anti-choice PACs that intimate that negative safety data exists. In reality, none does. Mifepristone actually has a similar safety profile to OTC medications such as Tylenol and is statistically safer than actual full-term pregnancy. This is backed up by, again, over 20 years worth of actual real-world usage data. Only someone who didn't understand or didn't trust science would find such an argument compelling.


This "judicial review" only makes sense if the judge's goal is not actually judicial review, but obtaining a result that could not be obtained through legislative or executive action. It is an anti-science, anti-fact, anti-rationality action that misuses the court system by allowing a case that has flimsy merit, at best, to cause significant disruption to multiple federal and state agencies, not to mention actual citizens.

[JPhillips]

The plaintiffs keep telling people this had nothing to do with abortion and was really about women's health and side effects. It's no standard on the right to brazenly lie if the lies lead to a "good" outcome.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I mean even if I didn't, I'm not sure what worth there is exploring that unless you think decisions to enforce rulings should be based on an examination of what the justice really means rather than their written ruling.

But that should matter the most. Is the judge making a legal ruling or a personal ruling? If it's the latter, it calls into question the legitimacy of that judge and his rulings.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I mean, your previous language about making or changing law is a constant conservative argument used against SCOTUS rulings on gay marriage and other civil rights issues. Those rulings still got enforced. Non-enforcement of judicial orders is a dark path to go down.

Those are constitutional issues though. Whether the government can treat certain citizens differently under the law.

This is not a constitutional issue. It's a group with no standing suing over a drug they don't take as a workaround to stop a legal medical procedure they don't like. The people suing are not having their rights stripped. They're trying to strip the rights from others.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The plaintiffs keep telling people this had nothing to do with abortion and was really about women's health and side effects. It's no standard on the right to brazenly lie if the lies lead to a "good" outcome.

The fact that their argument for standing was accepted is one of the more ridiculous parts of the case, and that's a hell of an accomplishment.

Their argument, from this right wing group of "medical professionals", was that they were damaged by having to spend time explaining to patients the side effects of the drug.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Sure, there's a line somewhere, but I don't think you can draw that line unless all options have been exhausted, which means at least going to SCOTUS. And when that line is drawn, prepare to never have another liberal ruling enforced ever again.

If a liberal judge ruled that meat is banned because they happen to be a vegan, what do you think the appropriate response would be?

That's the appropriate comparison. Not comparing the banning of a drug to an actual civil rights case.

[larrymcg421]

It's a shitty judge with a shitty ruling. I have no disagreements with that. The only reasons I engaged here in the first place were

1. People seemed to be suggesting that federal judges don't have the power to review FDA actions. That's factually incorrect.
2. I'm concerned about the fallout that would happen if the left sets a precedent of non-enforcement of judicial orders. The fact that the fallout would be far less justifiable in a vacuum doesn't comfort me at all given the way the GOP abuses all norms and doesn't always get electorally punished for it.

[GrantDawg]

DeSantis would love for Blue states to start ignoring judges' orders.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's a shitty judge with a shitty ruling. I have no disagreements with that. The only reasons I engaged here in the first place were

1. People seemed to be suggesting that federal judges don't have the power to review FDA actions. That's factually incorrect.
2. I'm concerned about the fallout that would happen if the left sets a precedent of non-enforcement of judicial orders. The fact that the fallout would be far less justifiable in a vacuum doesn't comfort me at all given the way the GOP abuses all norms and doesn't always get electorally punished for it.

Going to throw this out, and I'm not equating it really, but your statement just reminded of something I read this morning about

Missouri officials refuse to work with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, saying all federal 'so-called' gun laws are unconstitutional

A county saying that federal laws are unconstitutional. We're pretty far past the brink one way politically already. Counties now will selectively decide which laws they will follow.

The officials cited the state's Second Amendment Preservation Act as grounds to refuse to cooperate, KCUR reported. Last month, a federal judge struck down the 2021 law, which prohibited local police from enforcing federal gun laws, calling it "invalid, null, void, and of no effect.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

2. I'm concerned about the fallout that would happen if the left sets a precedent of non-enforcement of judicial orders. The fact that the fallout would be far less justifiable in a vacuum doesn't comfort me at all given the way the GOP abuses all norms and doesn't always get electorally punished for it.

This happens all the time now. Read about Governors, Mayors, and Sheriffs boasting about how they'll ignore rulings they don't like (specifically on guns). Bunch of Governors defied court rulings on gerrymandering. We're not exactly dealing with an era of politicians who respect the constitution.

I'm just saying it's a ridiculous ruling with no basis in our laws. It's a farce and we all know it. Just as it would be a farce if a judge banned meat because they don't like it. You don't need to give them any respect.

We're about a few months away from the "independent state theory" being ruled on. It'll be fun when our vote truly means nothing. Nothing to argue about though. Those judges we were just shown being bribed with millions will certainly make a ruling based in actual constitutional law.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The judicial system is also broken at the state level. As it stands the GOP can take cases directly to Kacsmaryk and a couple other Texas judges and know how he's going to rule. Your only course of action is then to get in front of the equally biased 5th circuit and then the SC. Judge shopping shouldn't be much less encouraged but it's where we are.

How does this part work? Like how can you ensure it goes in front of a particular nutter judge?

Also, this whole "we appeal some rando thing here and it suddenly applies across the entire country" - maybe it's just me but this feels like a relatively new thing.

SI

[bob]

Aren’t states with “legal” weed ignoring federal law too?

And possibly sanctuary cities as well?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

How does this part work? Like how can you ensure it goes in front of a particular nutter judge?

Also, this whole "we appeal some rando thing here and it suddenly applies across the entire country" - maybe it's just me but this feels like a relatively new thing.

SI

There are a couple of districts in TX that only have one judge, so if you file there you are assured that judge.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

How does this part work? Like how can you ensure it goes in front of a particular nutter judge?

Also, this whole "we appeal some rando thing here and it suddenly applies across the entire country" - maybe it's just me but this feels like a relatively new thing.

SI

In Texas cases are supposed to be randomly assigned to a judge in a district. However, as JPhillips said, there are districts in Texas with a single or just a couple of judges and the Trump administration started filling these with unqualified, far right judges. Tipton, Kacsmaryk, and Hendrix are the big 3 right wingers want to get their cases in front of and all 3 are Trump appointees.

Without even getting to private suits, the state of Texas has filed 28 cases against the Biden administration and 18 of those cases went to a district with a single judge.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bob

Aren’t states with “legal” weed ignoring federal law too?

And possibly sanctuary cities as well?

No, states enforce state law. Feds enforce federal law. They're not ignoring it, it's just not their job.

The Feds can come in and arrest people in legal weed states if they want to.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, states enforce state law. Feds enforce federal law. They're not ignoring it, it's just not their job.

The Feds can come in and arrest people in legal weed states if they want to.

Didn't we almost run into this issue with Barr? He wanted to start enforcing federal marijuana laws but backed down after states pushed back and refused to support federal agents?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Didn't we almost run into this issue with Barr? He wanted to start enforcing federal marijuana laws but backed down after states pushed back and refused to support federal agents?

I think it was Sessions. He was the one that used to tell people he was OK with the KKK until he learned they smoked pot.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

In Texas cases are supposed to be randomly assigned to a judge in a district. However, as JPhillips said, there are districts in Texas with a single or just a couple of judges and the Trump administration started filling these with unqualified, far right judges. Tipton, Kacsmaryk, and Hendrix are the big 3 right wingers want to get their cases in front of and all 3 are Trump appointees.

Without even getting to private suits, the state of Texas has filed 28 cases against the Biden administration and 18 of those cases went to a district with a single judge.

It's also worth mentioning that some of this is the Democrats own doing. There is an opening on the 5th circuit court of appeals (currently filled with conservatives) that will come into play on this FDA ruling. The Biden administratin has left it vacant for some reason.

Democrats are honoring blue slips still with the courts even though Republicans largely ignored them. So you can't confirm nominees in Republcian states.

And finally, Feinstein has had dementia for some time now and is dealing with other illnesses. She hasn't been showing up or voting. So judicial confirmations are on hold until she either resigns or recovers.

Just a reminder that despite their campaign promises, Democrats really don't care much about the courts and that's why you'll continue to see rulings like you just did in Texas.

[flere-imsaho]

Younger Democrats care about the courts and understand the importance of ramming judicial appointments through. The problem is that there are still waaaaaaay too many ancient Democrats in positions of power who still think the judiciary will revert to a center mean. Or, in the case of Feinstein, don't even think anymore.

[larrymcg421]

Again, what are we even talking about? Biden has an exemplary record in filling federal judgeships.

[sterlingice]

Another week, another nasty industrial accident
Massive inferno billowing toxic smoke from recycling plant known as a 'fire hazard' forces evacuation orders for thousands, officials say. It could burn for days | CNN

This will probably be a big news story for a little bit like Palestine. However, in the past, there would be some bill and a raft of new regulations to stop some of this crap - some window dressing and some real. Instead, there will be some complaining about how Biden is inept and also how he really hates the environment and no chance of passing any bill to address it because if the goal is to claim there's too much government regulation, show that it "fails" (when there's not enough manpower or penalties) and then roll it back so it happens even more.

SI

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Another week, another nasty industrial accident
Massive inferno billowing toxic smoke from recycling plant known as a 'fire hazard' forces evacuation orders for thousands, officials say. It could burn for days | CNN

This will probably be a big news story for a little bit like Palestine. However, in the past, there would be some bill and a raft of new regulations to stop some of this crap - some window dressing and some real. Instead, there will be some complaining about how Biden is inept and also how he really hates the environment and no chance of passing any bill to address it because if the goal is to claim there's too much government regulation, show that it "fails" (when there's not enough manpower or penalties) and then roll it back so it happens even more.

SI

I was actually born in that town and still have some relatives there. They seem to be alright. Some of them did have to evacuate.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And finally, Feinstein has had dementia for some time now and is dealing with other illnesses. She hasn't been showing up or voting. So judicial confirmations are on hold until she either resigns or recovers.

Speaking of Feinstein

Revealed: Dianne Feinstein Has Missed 73% of Senate Votes Taken Amid Claims Her Absence Is Holding Up Judicial Confirmations

She does need to resign and if not then she needs to be replaced on the committees she's on. Heck make it a general rule. If you miss X% of votes then you're removed from your committees, whether you're dealing with health issues or running for president.

[stevew]

I don’t think senators etc should get paid if they’re missing votes

[Edward64]

Another one.

GOP-controlled Arizona House votes to expel Republican representative | CNN Politics

State Rep. Liz Harris was expelled Wednesday from the Arizona House of Representatives for ethics violations resulting from inviting a conspiracy theorist to publicly testify before lawmakers earlier this year.

The resolution to expel the first-term Republican, elected in November, stated that she had brought “disrepute and embarrassment to the House of Representatives,” resulting in “disorderly behavior.” Forty-six Arizona representatives in the GOP-controlled House voted to remove her from her elected position, meeting a two-thirds threshold to expel lawmakers. Thirteen members opposed her expulsion.
:
Arizona Rep. Lupe Diaz, a fellow Republican, voted to expel Harris, saying on the House floor, “We need to have integrity in the institution, and I do not take this vote lightly. I do vote yes.”

Rep. Alex Kolodin, also a Republican, defended Harris ahead of the vote. “They [the public] will perceive that they don’t have a true voice in this body because when they elect somebody to rock the boat, and she does it … admittedly in the wrong way … a way that should have been better considered, that that member will be expelled. So, in order to protect this body, to preserve public trust and confidence in us and more importantly in the legislature as a means for being the peoples voice, and bringing about real change, I do sadly but resolutely vote no.”

I was wondering how many state representatives have been expelled before. The approx answer is

Elected officials expelled from state legislatures - Ballotpedia

This page collects examples of elected officials that have been expelled from state legislatures in the United States. Please note that the information below is not comprehensive. If you know of any cases we are missing, please contact us.

As of April 12, 2023, Ballotpedia has tracked 47 cases in which elected officials were expelled from state legislative chambers between 1837 and 2023. These officials include 18 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and five members of the Socialist Party.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Another week, another nasty industrial accident
Massive inferno billowing toxic smoke from recycling plant known as a 'fire hazard' forces evacuation orders for thousands, officials say. It could burn for days | CNN

This will probably be a big news story for a little bit like Palestine. However, in the past, there would be some bill and a raft of new regulations to stop some of this crap - some window dressing and some real. Instead, there will be some complaining about how Biden is inept and also how he really hates the environment and no chance of passing any bill to address it because if the goal is to claim there's too much government regulation, show that it "fails" (when there's not enough manpower or penalties) and then roll it back so it happens even more.

SI

The new conspiracy is that Biden and the Democrats are blowing up trains and factories in red states for some unknown reason.

[Edward64]

If the WaPo article is true, won't be long before (if not already) intelligence agencies identify the leaker.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ked-documents/

The man behind a massive leak of U.S. government secrets that has exposed spying on allies, revealed the grim prospects for Ukraine’s war with Russia and ignited diplomatic fires for the White House is a young, charismatic gun enthusiast who shared highly classified documents with a group of far-flung acquaintances searching for companionship amid the isolation of the pandemic.

United by their mutual love of guns, military gear and God, the group of roughly two dozen — mostly men and boys — formed an invitation-only clubhouse in 2020 on Discord, an online platform popular with gamers. But they paid little attention last year when the man some call “OG” posted a message laden with strange acronyms and jargon. The words were unfamiliar, and few people read the long note, one of the members explained. But he revered OG, the elder leader of their tiny tribe, who claimed to know secrets that the government withheld from ordinary people.

They were, he recalled, what appeared to be near-verbatim transcripts of classified intelligence documents that OG indicated he had brought home from his job on a “military base,” which the member declined to identify. OG claimed he spent at least some of his day inside a secure facility that prohibited cellphones and other electronic devices, which could be used to document the secret information housed on government computer networks or spooling out from printers. He annotated some of the hand-typed documents,

In those initial posts, OG had given his fellow members a small sip of the torrent of secrets that was to come. When rendering hundreds of classified files by hand proved too tiresome, he began posting hundreds of photos of documents themselves, an astonishing cache of secrets that has been steadily spilling into public view over the past week, disrupting U.S. foreign policy and aggravating America’s allies.

His account was corroborated by a second member who read many of the same classified documents shared by OG, and who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. Both members said they know OG’s real name as well as the state where he lives and works but declined to share that information while the FBI is hunting for the source of the leaks.