Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

[Bludogdem]

Really? All the decisions in the Lochner Era were based upon Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3?

Oh, and how has the right's view of Roe changed since 1973? They accepted it in 1973, right? It was a unanimous decision, right? All justices agreed with the viability argument, and the reason they want to knock down Roe is based upon lowered viability?

There wasn’t a previous attempt at federal minimum wage until the Fair Labor Standards Act. And the act cites the interstate commerce clause. So I’ll stick with “evolution of constitutional interpretation.”


Really? The right accepted Roe! Really? It was a unanimous decision! Really? All justices agreed on viability!

I’m not convinced they want to repeal Roe.

Why didn’t they do it last year? When they swore in Barrett? All they needed was 4 Votes. Explain why? It took until May to get 4 votes and then only with the question limited to “ Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”. Tell me Why.

[Drak]

Did bad faith koch owned Joe Manchin just kill it?

[gounion]

There wasn’t a previous attempt at federal minimum wage until the Fair Labor Standards Act. And the act cites the interstate commerce clause. So I’ll stick with “evolution of constitutional interpretation.”

You didn't answer the question. Did those case get turned down over the Commerce Clause? Yes or no?

You don't want to answer because you KNOW the answer. That's right, isn't it?

Really? The right accepted Roe! Really? It was a unanimous decision! Really? All justices agreed on viability!

I’m not convinced they want to repeal Roe.

Why didn’t they do it last year? When they swore in Barrett? All they needed was 4 Votes. Explain why? It took until May to get 4 votes and then only with the question limited to “ Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”. Tell me Why.

We'll see. Looks like they may shoot down Texas, from what's went on so far today. Seems they're worried that if they let this law stand, states can make similar laws concerning guns.

Which WOULD be hilarious. I think if it were to happen, it would be a disaster for our democracy, so I would never want to see it. It's the right that wants to destroy our nation, not me.

Please use the quote function correctly. Do not show other's words as your own. If you need to learn BBCode, go here. I'm not saying this as an authority, but as a member. It's bad form not to use it to differentiate one member's words from another. If it were to continue, we'd have to alert the problem to the Admin.

[Bludogdem]

You didn't answer the question. Did those case get turned down over the Commerce Clause? Yes or no?

You don't want to answer because you KNOW the answer. That's right, isn't it?

We'll see. Looks like they may shoot down Texas, from what's went on so far today. Seems they're worried that if they let this law stand, states can make similar laws concerning guns.

Which WOULD be hilarious. I think if it were to happen, it would be a disaster for our democracy, so I would never want to see it. It's the right that wants to destroy our nation, not me.

Please use the quote function correctly. Do not show other's words as your own. If you need to learn BBCode, go here. I'm not saying this as an authority, but as a member. It's bad form not to use it to differentiate one member's words from another. If it were to continue, we'd have to alert the problem to the Admin.

I did answer the question. There was no federal minimum wage case prior the Fair Labor Standards Act. And the act cited the authority of the commerce clause. The child labor cases were thrown out on the principle that manufacturing facilities were not subject to the commerce clause. All that changed due to the evolution of constitutional interpretation.

Please answer my question about why they couldn’t get 4 votes and the single question presented by the court.

[gounion]

I did answer the question. There was no federal minimum wage case prior the Fair Labor Standards Act. And the act cited the authority of the commerce clause. The child labor cases were thrown out on the principle that manufacturing facilities were not subject to the commerce clause. All that changed due to the evolution of constitutional interpretation.

You are dancing. Here's your original answer:

Evolution of constitutional interpretation. In the 1800’s and early1900’s manufacturing was not considered interstate commerce by the Supreme Court. So labor regulations for manufacturing belonged to the state.

If regulations belonged to the state, why didn't the Court allow any regulation of labor in the states? I mean, Lochner.

You won't answer this question either.

Please answer my question about why they couldn’t get 4 votes and the single question presented by the court./quote]
If they didn't plan to overturn it, they would have rejected like they have everything else, because it obviously defies precedent.

[Drak]

Manu Raju verified
@mkraju
23m

Jayapal signals that Manchin's comments will NOT impact progressives. Says they will vote FOR the infrastructure bill and $1.75T plan

"The president says he can get 51 votes for the bill, we are going to trust him ... We're tired of continuing to wait for one or two people."

[Motor City]

Perspective

The Laughing Stock of the World

Biden was beside himself to get something enacted before going to the G-20 summit and the COP-26 climate meeting. So he started tossing major pieces of his beloved bill overboard. He threw out paid family leave, got rid of free community college, took dental and eyeglasses away from the elderly and made a thousand other little cuts. He also decided the wealthy would not have to pay their true fair share of the taxes.

So Biden left for Europe without anything becoming law. In the weeks leading up to his trip, he (I mean the Republicans and the two lame Dems) also failed to raise the minimum wage and they failed to protect voting rights. The pundits howled. “Biden goes to Europe as a weakened president!” “Biden humiliated in front of the world!” “The US cannot govern itself and Biden enters these summits with America as the laughing stock amongst world leaders.”

Seriously?

Are the press and politicians that clueless as to why the world is laughing at us? I hate to tell you, it ain’t because of the roads and child tax credits. We are the laughing stock because we refuse to take care of our own people — and NO ONE around the world can understand why we force our old people to suffer and why we put our own children last. Not other country’s children. OURS!

Yes, we are a laughing stock. Biden’s “humiliation” this week in Europe is that the nation he leads is a brute to its own people. It’s not that the other leaders are laughing at him. They feel sorry for him. They pity us......

.............I do feel sorry for Joe Biden sitting on that world stage this week. But not because he couldn’t get an infrastructure bill passed. It’s because he has to sit there over Scottish tea and explain why our old people are now finally going to get to have free hearing aids! — but not glasses, and not a visit to the dentist. “You see,” Uncle Joe will explain, hanging his head, “in America, if you are old, you do have a right to hear — but not to see. And not to chew. God Bless America.” ..............

[sam lefthand]

Perspective

The Laughing Stock of the World

There was a word with a question mark in amoung all those other words Michel Moore said, "Seriously?"

Yeah, seriously???

[Motor City]

There was a word with a question mark in amoung all those other words Michel Moore said, "Seriously?"

Yeah, seriously???

yeah he really hit it, while the media fixated on the theme of humiliation in a really shallow and self serving manner, as if it were only consequential to reputations and a sports team like dimension Moore reminds us the humiliation is our countries use of might to inflict cruelty and suffering on the vulnerable.

[Libertas]

Where are the board right wingers defending pharmaceutical companies conversation?

Someone Google Katie Porter and prescription companies and play the video please

I have to go to the doctor


https://youtu.be/wpdhD4ZLBxc

Might be something newer. This ends the cons lies.

[sam lefthand]

I've got C-Span on: https://www.c-span.org/video/?515757-1/ ... nding-bill

They say they're about to vote on a rule for continuing to work on the human infrastructure bill, and final vote for the passage of the highway infrastructure bill. I'm going to watch it.

[Bludogdem]

I've got C-Span on: https://www.c-span.org/video/?515757-1/ ... nding-bill

They say they're about to vote on a rule for continuing to work on the human infrastructure bill, and final vote for the passage of the highway infrastructure bill. I'm going to watch it.

The infrastructure bill should have been signed by the President weeks ago.

[sam lefthand]

The infrastructure bill should have been signed by the President weeks ago.

It just passed so he'll get to sign it tonight or tomorrow.

13 Republicans voted yes and 6 Democrats voted no.



Next up is the vote to move forward the Build Back Better bill.

[ap215]

228-206 Onto Pres Biden's Desk

[Glennfs]

The infrastructure bill should have been signed by the President weeks ago.

It would have been had the progressives not held it hostage

[carmenjonze]

It would have been had the progressives not held it hostage

Put that hemp rope away.

Miss Aja
@brat2381

Thread🗣Heads up Black Twitter. Folks are always looking for things that Biden/Harris are specifically doing to help the Black community. In the historic BIF that passed tonight…there’s money specifically earmarked for infrastructure in the Black community. If you want to know



some of the history behind this money being in the BIF…here’s some background.

[LINK: Highways that destroyed Black neighborhoods are crumbling. Some want to undo that legacy]

[LINK: Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework Will Address Barriers Communities of Color Face to Economic Opportunity]

https://twitter.com/brat2381/status/1456888869614276612

[Bludogdem]

It just passed so he'll get to sign it tonight or tomorrow.

13 Republicans voted yes and 6 Democrats voted no.



Next up is the vote to move forward the Build Back Better bill.

That’s going to be a tough climb.

I’d like to see them break it down to key components and generate easy to understand specific bills.

[gounion]

That’s going to be a tough climb.

I’d like to see them break it down to key components and generate easy to understand specific bills.

It will pass the Senate. Its just sausage being made. We will have 50 votes for it. I do understand you want to see it all go down.

[sam lefthand]

I’d like to see them break it down to key components and generate easy to understand specific bills.

What do you not understand about the filibusterer rules of the US Senate?



Let me know that, and then I'll try to explain the missing links about how it all ties together to you.

[Bludogdem]

What do you not understand about the filibusterer rules of the US Senate?



Let me know that, and then I'll try to explain the missing links about how it all ties together to you.

I understand it all quite clearly.

Small, clearly defined popular bills can enhance public support - create pressure.

[gounion]

I understand it all quite clearly.

Small, clearly defined popular bills can enhance public support - create pressure.

Bullshit. No amount of public pressure will cause the GOP to vote for it. Their only plan is to block Biden. So don't fucking play pretend.

It has to be one big spending bill to pass with 50 votes plus the VP.

Maunchin was just SURE he could get 10 Republicans to sign on. They haven't.

[sam lefthand]

I understand it all quite clearly.

Small, clearly defined popular bills can enhance public support - create pressure.

That would be moot. The rules of the US Senate do not jibe well with what you would like to see.

Work around's is all there is to work with, so we're going to continue to see work being worked around.

[gounion]

That would be moot. The rules of the US Senate do not jibe well with what you would like to see.

Work around's is all there is to work with, so we're going to continue to see work being worked around.

Making proclamations like BDD does is wanting to kill the bill while pretending that you want the bill. He knows perfectly well that doing what he proposes means that there would be nothing passed.

He thinks he’s being clever.

[carmenjonze]

I understand it all quite clearly.

Small, clearly defined popular bills can enhance public support - create pressure.

How many people post under this account?

[Bludogdem]

That would be moot. The rules of the US Senate do not jibe well with what you would like to see.

Work around's is all there is to work with, so we're going to continue to see work being worked around.

Nothing precludes the House from, say, writing legislation that would simply create a Universal Pre K program, passing said legislation and advancing it the the Senate. Imagine the positive public support that would result.