DL Open Thread: Thursday, April 11, 2024

Throwing Bad Money After Worse Money Going After Court Of Chancery.  Sombrero tip to Al Catraz for citing this incomprehensible (to me) ad:

Could I point this out? Nobody in Delaware gives two shits about this.  I’d like to know just who the audience is for these ads.  I mean, hasn’t Musk already moved to reincorporate in Texas?  Plus, just what the bleep is the point of this ad?

Arizona Rethugs Run Themselves Over Once Again On Abortion.  Even they know that this total ban is a political disaster.  However:

Democrats, who seized on the decision to resurrect the 160-year-old ban as a pivotal election issue, tried to push bills through the Republican-controlled Legislature to repeal the ban, a move they said would protect women’s health and freedom, and also force Republicans to take a formal vote on the law.

But Republican leaders in the Senate removed one bill from the day’s agenda on Wednesday, legislative aides said. In the House, a Republican lawmaker who had called for striking down the law made a motion to vote on a Democratic repeal bill that has sat stalled for months. But Republican leaders quickly scuttled that effort by calling for a recess, and later adjourned until next Wednesday.

The decision and subsequent backlash has exposed divisions among Arizona Republicans over their support for abortion restrictions. And it has highlighted how abortion has become a political vulnerability for Republicans since the overturning of Roe v. Wade two years ago, even in traditionally conservative states.

Some Arizona Republicans who had previously voted to support abortion restrictions or give legal protection to fetuses abruptly shifted course after the ruling on Tuesday and called for a repeal or some other legislative fix.

They don’t want to pass a Democratic bill, but they’re terrified of the backlash from the anti-abortion folks should they try to introduce similar legislation on their own.  Plus, many of them love the decision, including the Rethug Speaker of the House:

The Senate president and House speaker, both Republicans, issued a joint statement emphasizing that the court’s ruling had not yet taken effect and probably would not for weeks, as the legal fight over the 1864 law heads back to a lower court for additional arguments over its constitutionality.

They said they were reviewing the ruling and would listen to their voters to determine what the Legislature should do. But Axios reported that the House speaker, Ben Toma, opposed a repeal and said that he would not allow a vote on it.

They broke it, they bought it.

‘Doggone Dangerous’ Gun Loophole To Be Closed.  At least until the Supreme Court overturns this:

The sale of firearms on the internet and at gun shows in the US will in future be subject to mandatory background checks, the justice department said on Thursday as it announced a “historic” new action to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

The closing of the so-called gun show loophole, which exempts private transactions from restrictions that apply to licensed dealers, has long been a goal of the Biden administration, and is specifically targeted in the rule published in the federal register today.

“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,” attorney general Merrick Garland told reporters on a press call announcing the measure.

The White House estimates that 22% of guns owned by Americans were acquired without a background check and that about 23,000 more individuals will be required to be licensed as a dealer after the rule’s implementation.

“There is a large and growing black market of guns being sold by people in the business of dealing and doing it without a license, and therefore they are not running background checks the way the law requires,” ATF director Steven Dettelbach said.

A big F-ing deal.

‘Non-Persons’ Voting On The Agenda For Seaford Elections.  Candidates stances on this and other local issues are informing the April 20 election. From this opinion piece:

Negative “continuity” not needed in Seaford:

• Voting to raise electric rates without first considering budget cuts to reduce/eliminate the need for increases
• Overturning the will of the people by trying to allow hundreds of nonpersons to vote in municipal elections
• Closing Magnolia Drive with a farm gate, while ignoring citizens’ complaints of violations of charter and bylaw legal requirements
• Using highly political legal theories to pursue an illegal “fetal remains” ordinance, resulting in a resounding defeat in an impartial Delaware court
• Failing to attempt to remedy the severe problem of 4,680 eligible voters not voting in the April 15, 2023, municipal election
• Multiple legal violations of the Freedom of Information Act and election laws, as ruled by the impartial Delaware Department of Justice and the impartial Delaware Department of Elections, respectively

Check out their voting records, showing that the two current city councilmen running for mayor and City Council were/are right in the middle of support of these negative actions.

Sounds reasonable to me.

What do you want to talk about?