The Supreme Court at the 2023 State of the Union

President Biden goes off script on abortion.

Tonight President Biden gave the State of the Union address. In attendance were Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kagan, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackson. Justices Kennedy and Breyer were also in attendance. When they entered, there was a standing ovation on both sides of the aisle.

https://twitter.com/witchestruth/status/1623138985642979328

The President's address included only one bit about the Supreme Court. Here were his prepared remarks:

Congress must restore the right the Supreme Court took away last year and codify Roe v. Wade to protect every woman's constitutional right to choose. The Vice President and I are doing everything we can to protect access to reproductive health care and safeguard patient privacy. But already, more than a dozen states are enforcing extreme abortion bans. Make no mistake; if Congress passes a national abortion ban, I will veto it.

But Biden issued a watered-down version of these already-tepid remarks:

Congress must restore the right that was taken away in Roe v. Wade and protect Roe v. Wade [applause] give every woman a [?] right. The Vice President and I are doing everything to protect access to reproduction health care and safeguard patient safety. But already, more than a dozen states are enforcing extreme abortion bans. Make no mistake about it; if Congress passes a national abortion ban, I will veto it.

Biden calls on Congress to codify Roe v. Wade, and condemns states that are enforcing extreme abortion bans.

"Make no mistake; if Congress passes a national abortion ban, I will veto it." pic.twitter.com/IJcYUm2jgu

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) February 8, 2023

He didn't say the Supreme Court took away the right. He didn't say Congress should codify Roe v. Wade. And he didn't even clearly say constitutional right to choose. He only threatened to veto a bill that will never get passed. Alas, the camera did not cut to the Justices while Biden delivered these remarks, so there was no reaction shot. Biden did not do a reprise of Obama's 2010 State of the Union.

Biden did make a joke about the Chief Justice providing a court order so he can attend the Super Bowl.

"By the way, Chief Justice, I may need a court order. She gets to the game next week, I have to stay home. We have to work something out here" -- Biden pic.twitter.com/3ykNJZCS0b

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 8, 2023

There was zero mention of "Court reform." No mention of his much-vaunted Supreme Court commission. And no mention of his new Supreme Court appointee, Ketanji Brown Jackson. Or as he said it recently, Ketanji Drown Jackson.

BIDEN: "Those are the words of Kejan— Kejan— Ketanji Drown Jackson, our Supreme Court justice." pic.twitter.com/Fbhk0pffsY

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 15, 2023

At 2:26:30 (on the C-SPAN feed), Biden makes his way back to the Justices. He says "Sorry you guys had to sit through that. I apologize." Justice Kagan laughs out loud and the Chief smiles.

"Sorry you guys had to sit there," Biden jokes to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan before launching into a story with retired Justices Breyer and Kennedy about the Supreme Court nomination fight in 1987 + his private meeting with Reagan that helped lead to Kennedy's selection. pic.twitter.com/Aa4Y6R1L3G

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) February 8, 2023

So much for using the bully pulpit to go after the Supreme Court.

Next, Biden asks Justice Breyer "are you doing okay." Breyer says nods his head, "yes." Then Biden walks over to Justice Kennedy, and brings Justice Breyer back into the conversation. He then recounts a lengthy story about Kennedy's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987. Biden recounted how he recommended then-Judge Kennedy to President Reagan.

On balance, this usually-staid exercise was actually refreshing. It was nice to see Justices Kennedy and Breyer back in their element. And even though we are repeatedly told that the Supreme Court is an existential threat to democracy, Republicans and Democrats alike cheered for the Justices (including two members of the Dobbs majority), and the President joked around with the Chief. Things are not so bad.

Comments

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Republicans and Democrats alike cheered for the Justices (including two members of the Dobbs majority), and the President joked around with the Chief. Things are not so bad.

I dunno, things are always worse when Congress goes all bipartisanship.

[Kazinski]

I'm surprised Biden didn't promise to vigorously support the 13th amendment right to abortion.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Biden didn’t criticize or misrepresent the Court’s decision on abortion.

He didn’t mention “packing” the Court because Democrats do not seriously support it and he has always been opposed.

And cut the juvenile criticism of his stuttering problem.

Also speaking of juvenility, you didn’t mention the heckling which is becoming a Republican tradition with Democratic Presidents.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He didn’t mention “packing” the Court because Democrats do not seriously support it and he has always been opposed.

I remember Biden and the DNC making an awful lot of noise about packing the court. Went on for considerable time.

And politicians are grown ups and regularly insult each other in much worse ways than mere stuttering. In this case, it is a direct sign of Biden's mental state and entirely relevant. That you think you need to come to his defense is just another sign of how incapacitated he is.

[Randal]

Do you not know that Biden has had a stutter his whole life? Try to know what you're talking about.

[Michael P]

This is not like his habits of plagiarism or confabulation that he has had his entire life. This is him badly mangling what he's trying to read. A stutter doesn't vaporize multiple words, like happened in the quote about Roe v. Wade (unless you think he just downgraded abortion from constitutional right to statutory ad lib).

[Randal]

He was ad libbing all over the place. He obviously wasn't just mechanically reading the teleprompter. He colloquialized a lot of staid language that probably came from his speechwriters.

Everybody knows it was the Supreme Court that overturned Roe. No need to say that. Also that it happened last year. And "codify" is legal jargon -- "protect" is much better for a speech.

This is the first time I've ever heard someone claim that being spontaneous and reworking a speech in real-time to better suit the audience is a sign of dementia. Come on, you're not fooling anyone.

[Michael P]

Whose fault is it if his signature speech of the year needs to be reworked that thoroughly? Is Biden a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, to coin a phrase?

What he said is less coherent than what was written for him, as usual.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you arguing that a written speech is better than actual speaking not reading?

Because that's just flat wrong. It's *riskier*, but it's almost always a better speech.

And certainly mentally more challenging.

[Michael P]

I’m stating the obvious: That what Biden was reading from made more sense than what he said. I don’t know what strawman you are trying to turn that into, but as typical for you, you insist on significantly rewriting what other people wrote in order to advance whatever point you think you have.

[Sarcastr0]

Whose fault is it if his signature speech of the year needs to be reworked that thoroughly? Is Biden a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, to coin a phrase?

This seems to be arguing that not reading from a speech is bad public speaking practice.

I am having trouble parsing it any other way.

Sorry when pushed back against, your arguments are so flimsy they seem made of straw. But that's a you problem, not a me problem.

[Michael P]

I was responding to a claim that Biden reworked the speech on the fly to fit the audience. The audience of the SOTU speech is not a surprise, so it seems like somebody failed if the speech needed to be reworked on the scale that Biden did.

Try paying attention to the context rather than trying to read a directed question as a freestanding argument.

[Sarcastr0]

Let me try again: Biden didn’t stick to his script. That’s not uncommon, and it’s not something to read much into.

[Michael P]

No new goalposts.

[Sarcastr0]

What changed about my goalposts here?

[David Nieporent]

I was responding to a claim that Biden reworked the speech on the fly to fit the audience. The audience of the SOTU speech is not a surprise, so it seems like somebody failed if the speech needed to be reworked on the scale that Biden did.

This is so dumb that you should be embarrassed to have made the argument, though given your political proclivities and your other posts here, the ability to feel shame doesn't appear to be one of your personal attributes.

Have you ever given a speech in your life? If you're bad at doing so, you will read a script, because that's safe. If you're competent at doing so, you will adjust it on the fly because even if you knew who your audience was going to comprise, you need to make it comport with the way they react to your speech. (If you are excellent at doing so, you won't have a script at all, but for something like SOTU, that doesn't seem feasible.)

[Michael P]

Randal argued that the particular departure from script here was the infamous Biden stutter rather than senility. Your entry point was “Are you arguing that a written speech is better than actual speaking not reading?” Now you’re trying to dismiss it because he does it all the time.

(Meant in response to "What changed about my goalposts here?")

[Sarcastr0]

You: Randal argued that the particular departure from script here was the infamous Biden stutter rather than senility.

Randal: He was ad libbing all over the place. He obviously wasn’t just mechanically reading the teleprompter. He colloquialized a lot of staid language that probably came from his speechwriters.

Fail.

[Michael P]

Yes, that was him attempting to shift attention from Biden's garbled delivery. Earlier Randal: "Do you not know that Biden has had a stutter his whole life? Try to know what you’re talking about."

[Sarcastr0]

He has had a stutter his whole life - that is relevant for when he misspeaks.

It is not relevant for when he departs from reading the written words generally. That is a whole 'nother arena.

This is not a difficult distinction to make. And you seemed above to be picking up on it. But now you claim you never did understand what Randal was saying.

Either you're a fool or a troll. Either way, bad show.

[Michael P]

Like I said earlier, no new goalposts.

[Sarcastr0]

If you can't follow the conversation and see that your issue was asked and answered and then a different issue was under discussion, that's on you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Much as I dislike Biden, and he does increasingly often have "senior moments" of serious magnitude, as well as an off the chart number of gaffes and outright lies, I'll agree with you: He was ad libbing, and not badly.

[David Nieporent]

I remember Biden […] making an awful lot of noise about packing the court. Went on for considerable time.

No, you don't.

[Joe_dallas]

Then why did biden sign the executive order to form the commission on possible reforms for the SC? April 2021

[Sarcastr0]

When is the last policy reform with Presidential push to come out of a commission?

Commissions are where policies go to die.

If he wanted to pack the Court, there would be no commission.

[David Nieporent]

Then why did biden sign the executive order to form the commission on possible reforms for the SC?

Because he doesn't support court-packing. (Something which he has expressly said on more than one occasion.)

[Commenter_XY]

I'm an agnostic on the heckling piece; it goes both ways. Why? As a teen, I occasionally watched Prime Ministers Question Hour; it got spicy with Thatcher. I loved it. At that time, I wondered why our POTUS doesn't have a public question hour.

Agree it is poor form, and a lack of social grace. Then again, we are talking about Congress. Henry Adams said it best.

“You can’t use tact with a Congressman! A Congressman is a hog! You must take a stick and hit him on the snout!”

[Sarcastr0]

I love question time. The GOP may fail on decorum, but this heckling is something I could get behind.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Then why don't Democrats do it? Trump, notoriously thin-skinned, would have told the Sergeant at Arms to have the hecklers arrested "and don't be too gentle about it either"! And would have offered to pay the legal fees of anyone who was arrested for assaulting them.

[Sarcastr0]

Indeed - this is one norm I wouldn't mind going away. I hope the SOTU does continue like this.

[David Nieporent]

No. The SOTU should go back to the century-old tradition before the awful Woodrow Wilson imperialized it: it should be a written message sent over to Congress.

[Sarcastr0]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I understand the argument for a dignified report, but I like me a bit of circus in my politics.

Has a strong American tradition, is a good time, and keeps our elected officials of common dignity, not magisterial.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think the president imperiously summoning¹ all the other branches of the government to listen to him give a longwinded speech that's a combination of braggadocio, puffery, and faux patriotism has anything at all to do with dignity.

If it were like Question Time, that would be a different story.

¹Technically Congress has to invite him, but nobody sees it that way. (I think it pretty obvious that if the president wanted to give this sort of address and Congress said, "No," that Congress would be seen as being in the wrong.)

[Sarcastr0]

I think we do agree then!

Past SOTU have not been great since at least GWB (when I started paying attention to politics) for many reasons at least among them the symbolism you lay out. And they're larded up with ritual and populist 'look who is in the audience' nonsense as well.

I see this inching towards Question Time, and that's why I'm excited.

Oval office speech is better than past SOTU, but not as good as American Question Time, IMO. Though even there, YMMV.

[OtisAH]

I don’t understand the point you’re making. Who sees the SOTU as the president imperiously summoning congress?

[David Nieporent]

Me.

[OtisAH]

I guess I just don’t understand believing something despite knowing the belief is incorrect.

[MaddogEngineer]

Um, the president doesn't imperious summon Congress, that body invites him. That was a norm I thought might fall during Pelosi & Company's jihad against Trump, but I guess they realized (unlike abolishing the judicial filibuster) that was a useful norm they might want in the future, which is today.

[Sarcastr0]

Someone needs to read the footnotes.

[MaddogEngineer]

You mean like when Nancy Pelosi made a show of ripping up the text of Trump's SOTU speech behind him on the podium? You've already gotten your wish, history didn't start in 2023.

Ditto the focus on MTG's "wardrobe"...looked like she was wearing something similar to what the congressgal's wore a few years before.

Decorum, decorum, norms norms norms...

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, yeah. Though this is a lot more like question time than that bit of nonsense.

Do you think history started in 2020? It's a trajectory, not a single example.

Norms matter. Some are good, some are bad. But they are a thing and talking about them is not some insane thing to do.

[MaddogEngineer]

I don't know why you'd ask someone who already asked if history started in 2023 whether it started in 2020...usually people who ask such a question are disparaging the notion that a recent occurrence is truly the first time for it.

But about 2020, some of those norms people were "outraged" that Trump is breaking, also didn't start that year. Denying the legitimacy of an election was made great starting in 2016. No wait, 2000...selected not elected!

(I've never voted for Trump and never will, for your FYI)

[Seamus]

The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives doesn't take orders from the President. He answers to the House.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump would not know that.

He thinks he can “order” judges to “sign bills” and has said that Congress members who insult him are committing “treason” and can be “impeached”. He has said all this in public.

My point is that Trump would not react as cleverly as Biden did last night. With the Sergeant at Arms refusing to follow his orders he would get flustered and, weak man that he is whenever confronted, he would probably walk out.

[bernard11]

If we want to have question time, let's have question time, which is quite a different concept than the SOTU. Question time can be entertaining, though I don't think it accomplishes much.

The SOTU is supposed to be a report and recommendations by the President to Congress, not an opportunity for members to question the President or yell insults.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Agree

[Randal]

Things are not so bad.

You obviously didn't stay tuned in for Sarahbee's retort. Or watch the Fox News post-game. Don't you know, the Democrats are all part of a secret club called "Cannibals Against America!"

Don't worry, you'll remember how bad things are by tomorrow, once Biden's speech has faded from your mind and been replaced by your daily intake of the kool-aid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pfft. It's hardly secret at this point.

Seriously, though: Apologizing to the Justices about his SOTU speech? Is he implying he doesn't control what's in it?

[Randal]

I took it as a joke, like, sorry you had to sit through the spectacle that is the political branches… as in, compared to the somber gravitas of the courtroom.

[apedad]

You'd think BB would understand the 'presidential joke' after listening to Trump making snide remarks but then have his flunkies say later, "Sheesh he was joking. You Democrats are so sensitive."

[OtisAH]

That’s our Brett, trying to hang his hat on a picture of a nail again.

[Michael P]

No direct comment on the state of national security after letting a Chinese spy balloon loiter over the country for a week, just a veiled suggestion that he "made clear with President Xi" that he won't shoot down the next one either.

The closest he came to truth about that whole thing was an inadvertent confession:

Before I came to office, the story was about how the People’s Republic of China was increasing its power and America was falling in the world.

Not anymore.

Yes, that was "the story". It was not the truth, not the perception, only the coordinated story being pushed by mainstream media. Now, the whole world knows how China has been increasing its power and Biden has been reducing America's power and influence, but the NBCs and NYTs of the world don't report on it.

[Nige]

'Chinese spy balloon'

It is to laugh. Only Republicans could work so hard to make an off-course weather balloon into a global humiliation for the US.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Chinese balloon was estimated to have a gas bag of about 200 feet in size, and a payload on the order of a ton. And it was capable of powered flight, controlling its path rather than just following the wind.

A typical weather balloon runs to about a 20 foot gas bag and a half pound payload, and just passively goes where the wind takes it.

The idea that it was a "weather balloon" is absurd, only idiots and people deliberately spouting lies are going to claim that thing was a weather balloon. You could be either, I suppose, or even both.

It was absolutely not a weather balloon. It's possible it was primarily a research balloon, but the Chinese military are so entangled with everything in China, by design, that the chance that it didn't have spying functions are negligible.

[Nige]

I accept the correction, research balloon. They sent a great big obvious research balloon with *very limited* steering abilities over the US to spy because why not, it's always fun to watch the right go apeshit and see who feels obliged to treat them as Serious People.

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you even heard of the concept of "flight paths"? Of the notion that, if you're flying something over another country's territory, especially a country you're not on great terms with, you ask them first?

Do you think there's even the slightest chance that, if we flew, unannounced, a huge high altitude balloon over China, that it would survive? Really? We used to fly the SR-71 over hostile countries, but we got away with that because it could outfly the missiles shot at it. Not because we expected it to not be shot at.

This sort of thing is VERY provocative. It's the sort of thing you don't do unless you mean to be provocative. To either show that the other guy lacks the capacity to stop you, or to confirm that they lack the will.

Biden fell into that latter category, he waited until it had finished its mission over the US to shoot it down, and only then because the public had learned about it.

[Sarcastr0]

I took a course in space policy, and it began with overflights.

As the Cold War ramped up in the 1950s, both the US and Russia did overflights of one another's countries. While not legally sanctioned, the practice did become normalized to the point that actively shooting at an overflight was not a legitimate protection of one's sovereign territory.

This later encouraged the orbital surveillance platforms of the NRO, which fueled our space program, and later the Space Race.

No, it's not VERY provocative. You have no idea what you're talking about, so you fill in the gaps with what you want to be true.

[Michael P]

That must have been an awful course if you didn't think to mention Francis Gary Powers in your projection of fiction-as-reality.

If you want a detailed legal discussion of the law, https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2023/02/05/guest-post-the-chinese-balloon-shoot-down-incident-and-the-law-some-observations/ summarizes: International law does not obviously recognize the ahoot-down of this balloon as self-defense, but the US has long held a broader view of self-defense under international law, and it is probably justifiable under national laws.

[Sarcastr0]

US diplomatic posture is not the same thing as actual practice.

I was clearly talking about norms not laws. Which is what you want to be talking about if you want to get at whether something actually is provocative.

You have been doing a bad job of reading this thread.

[Brett Bellmore]

While strolling locally I walk past the memorial to Major Rudolf Anderson, who was shot down over-flying Cuba during the cold war, multiple times a year, so don't try to tell me that over-flights over hostile countries are routine events, no big deal.

[Sarcastr0]

That wasn't an act of war, nor did Cuba always shoot at our overflights.

Yes, International norms are not bright lines, and countries will do what they think they can get away with. But if you want to argue that shooting down all overflights was Cuban, US, or USSR policy, you're going to have a difficult case to make.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed, it's not a big deal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Notice that China's not a signatory, and even under that treaty the overflight rights were very restrictive and tightly controlled.

[Sarcastr0]

China not being a signatory means their balloons are VERY provocative now?

Dude, you are speaking to international norms you know nothing about, but have a preferred outcome in mind.
I know that's usual for Internet arguing, but thought I'd point that out.

BTW, my professor on this was later a Trump admin official.

[David Nieporent]

They were in fact not very restrictive or tightly controlled. And I don't know what China being a signatory has to do with anything; the claim wasn't that China was legally entitled to do this under the treaty, but that the treaty shows that overflights aren't a big deal. (Russia was a signatory until Trump pulled the U.S. out of the treaty.)

(You guys do know about satellites, right?)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

We are not a signatory to the treaty anymore, therefore the legal authority to conduct these flights over our country no longer exists.

A balloon is not a satellite. It is substantially closer to the ground, and has the ability to linger over a specific area to a much greater extent than a 'regular' surveillance satellite.

[Sarcastr0]

...how much autonomous control do you think this balloon had?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Autonomous? I'd imagine none.

I believe China acknowledged that it did have limited steering capabilities.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Gary Francis Powers might have a different perspective on that, as would the passengers on Korea Air 007 if we could ask them.

[Sarcastr0]

Counterexamples are not how international norms work.

[Michael P]

They're better guidance than your baloney-based assertions and legally ignorant analogies. See also, for example, https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/balloons-vs-satellites-popping-some-misconceptions-about-capability-and-legality/

[Nige]

There’s no actual evidence that the balloon didn’t just go off course, except that it seems to have happened before without so much fuss. Biden shot the balloon down to shut up the stupid yammering – of course it didn’t work, yammering is all Republicans do.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
‘Chinese spy balloon’

"It is to laugh. Only Republicans could work so hard to make an off-
course weather balloon into a global humiliation for the US."

As usual - nige has an extreme level of a disconnect from reality

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It was not a weather balloon, and it was not 'off-course.'

You are a gullible dipshit.

[Nige]

Somebody is.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Indeed, check a fucking mirror.

https://time.com/6253002/chinese-balloon-weather-balloon-experts/

You're too dumb to even realize how dumb you are.

[Nige]

Yes, you are right to be scared of the balloon.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Shown the evidence that your assertion is complete nonsense, you don't have the character to admit you were wrong.

Unsurprising.

[apedad]

Luckily we have you to tell us the real truth....

[Sarcastr0]

It's kinda laughable to try and call that a threat.

Not that we shouldn't have shot it down on principle, and maybe sooner than we did. Kind of bad we didn't seem to have an SOP since it's happened before.

But if it sounds silly to fear a balloon, that's because it is.

[Nige]

I knew this whole thing reminded me of something. Remember the old TV sereies V that ended with the resistance up in balloons spreading some powder that was poisonous to the aliens? They blew up some of the balloons with lasers, but that just made the poison spread faster and wider.

[Michael P]

That you don't recognize the danger in allowing a hostile country to overfly our country on a whim reflects on you, not on Biden or China or the rest of us.

Why didn't the Biden administration create an SOP after they recognized those previous incidents?

[Sarcastr0]

We've allowed overflights since the 1960s.

China has good satellite tech.

Previous incidents occurred during Trump as well. There probably wasn't an SOP because no one in the public noticed, so no one cared.

You're being pretty silly.

[Michael P]

Ah, you're still pushing the lie from earlier in the week.

The DoD has since admitted that they didn't recognize the overflights during the Trump administration -- they only realized what those were after Biden came into office.

Why didn’t the Biden administration create an SOP after they recognized those previous incidents?

[Sarcastr0]

A lie? I'm not seeing a correction here, or in any of the other articles on this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-06/us-didn-t-know-about-chinese-balloons-during-trump-until-later

Why didn’t the Biden administration create an SOP after they recognized those previous incidents?
I refer you to my previous comment about both administrations. I do think an SOP would be best practice, but not having one is pretty understandable.

[Michael P]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/05/politics/chinese-spy-balloons-trump-administration/index.html

Unlike Bloomberg, there's a remotely useful identification of the source for CNN's reporting.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s also not inconsistent with the bloomberg article.

It does get the Trump admin off the hook re: and SOP, but not realizing that there was a balloon at all is not really an improvement.

And, of course, there was no lie.

[Michael P]

The Bloomberg and CNN articles are inconsistent to the extent that the Bloomberg one inaccurately suggests that the spy balloons were identified as such during the Trump administration, without explicitly stating it.

https://twitter.com/robreiner/status/1622112066978054147 is an example of someone who fell for, and repeated, the lie.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. You think this is a lie: While some members of the Trump administration eventually realized that the unidentified objects were Chinese spy vessels, those intelligence conclusions often took weeks - particularly because the balloons included jamming systems to hide their true intent, Trump-era officials said. The former president was never presented an opportunity to shoot balloons down.

It would appear to disagree with the CNN report, though marginally.
You can pick sides; I'll withhold judgement.

[Michael P]

No. I linked to the lie in its purest form. For some reason you refuse to confront it.

When faced with a Chinese spy balloon, Trump kept it hidden from the public and ignored it.

[Joe_dallas]

Did the chinese flights occur during the trump administration? - Got to be Curious how anyone in 2023 was able to detect flights that occurred 3-4 years ago when they werent detected when they actually happened.

[Sarcastr0]

Who says they weren't detected when they actually happened? Seems a data analysis situation to me.

[Joe_dallas]

Just pointing out the biden adminstration claim and the "facts" detailed in that claim lack plausibility.

Along with the rush to accept "facts" of a dubious nature while failing to take any steps to ascertain if the claimed facts are even logical or plausible.

[Sarcastr0]

Right now the facts don't seem to be nailed down, though more from what former Trump admin people are saying than the current DoD.

But jut as I should have checked for updates since Monday, you should not come in hot accusing anyone of lying until the facts are in.

No one said anything logically implausible; that's your own reading letting you down.

[Nige]

Danger! Danger! Ballooooooons!

[Life of Brian]

Kind of bad we didn’t seem to have an SOP since it’s happened before.

Different "it" by many orders of magnitude. Finding any sort of reasonable equivalency in stuff like "sorta drifted in the vicinity of one of the Hawaiian islands for a few minutes" or "flew across the middle of the Gulf of Mexico and coulda maybe photographed some beach parties in Miami" just shows the desperation of the folks trying to normalize this debacle.

But if it sounds silly to fear a balloon, that’s because it is.

Not nearly as silly as reductive strawmen. Last I checked, a ~1-ton payload can pack a lot of big bang.

[Sarcastr0]

No, China is not going to use balloons to bomb us.

LOL.

I don't need to normalize this; we have a pretty robust history. And not just balloons.

In your quest to attack Biden you've become a fool yet again.

[Life of Brian]

OK, boss -- since you're so confident that this sort of thing happens routinely and there's no-none-zip-zero chance of anything bad happening from it, I'll sleep like a rock from here on and just hope the next one flies close enough that I can get some souvenir shots.

Listen to yourself.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Pretty silly way to spy, or even to attack, using a slow-moving, bright-white balloon 200 feet across that can be easily seen from the ground and just as easily shot down.

We don’t know how fine a resolution Chinese spy satellites can photograph (though the whole world knows about ours, due to Trump’s tweeting a classified photo in 2019) but if they’re going to spy, they’re going to spy.

[Nige]

Maybe they're massing an army of Pennywise The Clowns.

[Voize]

Now, the whole world knows [...] but the NBCs and NYTs of the world don’t report on it.

Well, it's hardly news if the whole world already knows about it ...

[Jonathan Affleck]

Justice Thomas loathes Biden. Yet they seem to agree about Section 230, which I gather was not addressed in the SOU message. (Biden always puts me to sleep.)

18th century British and American colonials seem to have considered an embryo to be a person. See the play A complete key to the last new farce The what d'ye call it : to which is prefix'd a hypercritical preface on the nature of burlesque, and the poets design, which was primarily written by Benjamin Griffin and published in 1715.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Congress must restore the right the Supreme Court took away last year and codify Roe v. Wade to protect every woman's constitutional right to choose."

Exactly how and under what part of the Constitution? The commerce clause?

It's well established that states have the authority to regulate the practice of medicine which is what abortion is, and SCOTUS will uphold its own decision.

[Sarcastr0]

...Do you want to relitigate abortion jurisprudence? The Constitutional arguments on both sides are extremely well explicated at this point. Roe and Casey are still useful to understand the Democrat's argument.

Like, these days we're into the deep cuts like the 13A. Very hipster - it's a pretty new argument, you've probably never heard of it.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Long ago Andrew Koppelman published "Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion", 84 NW. U. L. REV. 480 (1990),

I attended a Yale Law School lecture on the subject in the early 80s.

[Seamus]

Roe and Casey are silent about abortion as interstate commerce.

And while they that abortion is protected by the 14th amendment, and while, if they were still good law, that would give Congress the green light to protect the right to abortion under section 5 of that amendment, they aren't good law, so section 5 no longer provides any support for such legislation.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The 13th Amendment argument seems insufficient to me. The 13th Amendment in combination with an Equal Rights Amendment and supported by the 14th Amendment might provide a winning argument against state restrictions on abortion rights.

Most American women don't realize that they do not have rights equal to American men.

[apedad]

I wish presidents would just give the speech from the Oval Office.

It's more than unseemly to watch Congress stand and applaud, or boo, or will McCarthy pull a Pelosi, or which SC Justices showed up, etc., (BOTH sides).

It's really childish (again BOTH sides).

[BillyG]

I wish we'd go back the president handing the congressional clerk a written report. It wasn't until Woodrow Wilson that it became the circus it is today.

[Seamus]

It didn't *really* become a circus until LBJ decided that he had to give his annual message during prime time, instead of shortly after the House came into session at noon.

[Frank Drackman]

That was in-ex-cuse-a-bull how Speaker McCarthy tore up Senescent Joe's speech before he even gave it.

Frank "That's all "Folks""

[SimonP]

Shorter Josh: I am a child who understands only simple things.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did they finish up with a balloon drop?

[ragebot]

I just watched a Ted vid about stuttering and did Googled some urls on stuttering. While there does seem to be agreement that Biden has a lifelong issue with stuttering I am not convinced all his gaffs are the result of stuttering and to some extent stuttering has been used to cover up some of his gaffs.

In another thread I had a post about his comment 'half the women in my administration are women'. The thing is this example was 'funny' on more than one level. But it does not meet my definition of stuttering; it just seems like he was babbling incoherently. There are several other examples of Biden saying something that simply seem to be babbling and not stuttering.

The Mayo Clinic also mentioned that stuttering can be treated in several ways and I wonder if Biden has ever undergone any of these treatments or if they would help. In any case I found this vid interesting in that it describes the types of stuttering (along with noting that other types exist) and none of them seem to describe Biden's gaffs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Y5Q-Miew8

Bottom line is that while stuttering (also called stammering) is real and does exist I am not convinced it explains why sometimes when Biden talks he seems like an idiot. There is the example of asking a pol who recently died to stand up for starters; but it is far from the only example. So what do you guys think; are excuses being made using stuttering to cover up Biden's gaffs or are they all explainable due to stuttering?

[Sarcastr0]

Bottom line you're doing a lot of Internet sleuthing and pop-psychology to keep a pretty dumb and probably scurrilous attack on Biden going.

No one outside of the far right cares, dude. You can keep calling him dumb and senile all you want; that's just for you.

[Mr. Bumble]

So when is a lie, a lie?

[Sarcastr0]

Not even Blackman thinks Biden was lying.

[ragebot]

Fuck off libturd, this is a classic example of Biden being an senile idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_59agcnLAj4

[Sarcastr0]

You can keep calling him dumb and senile all you want; that’s just for you.

[Krayt]

We love pop psychology remote diagnoses of presidents, until we don't.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Krayt, I've never been one to diagnose Trump with anything other than being a wannabe authoritarian asshole.

Maybe check before you accuse someone of being a hypocrite.

[ragebot]

Biden himself has said he stutters and has all his life; something many others on his side of the fence have also claimed so this is not my diagnose.

But you seem to purposely ignore my point that on multiple occasions caught on video Biden seems to have 'senior moments when he is out of it and some of his fanboys want to blame them on stuttering.

You seem to even deny Biden stutters less yet he at best has senior moments.

[Sarcastr0]

Your point is bullshit, ragebot. You're doing Internet psychology, and it's bad when done to Biden, Trump or anyone else.

Confirmation bias is a helluva drug. Don't lean into it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, reality is that what we see is what we see.

Now as to what performance enhancing drugs they are filling him full of -- that is the question I have.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, reality is you see what you WANT to see, and fill in the details with bullshit.

You don't have questions, you have fiction.

[Estragon]

The word you’re looking for here is “gaffe” — a “gaff” is something you catch fish with.

[OtisAH]

This is an excellent summary of… well, nothing, really. But you definitely captured the essence of it.

[Frank Drackman]

He said "Folks" almost as often as the Rev.olting Arthur L. Sandusky says "Klingers"

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Prof. Blackman, as a lawyer/law professor, is supposed to be something of a professional writer. And yet, he apparently does not understand that the idiom "goes off script" does not refer to deviating from the words of a written speech, but from the message of a written speech.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, I’ve seen it used both ways.

Some around here seem to be using this ambiguity for some motte and bailey arguments.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks, I learned a new term today.

[Sarcastr0]

I only know it because someone accused me of doing so 😛

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The Constitution specifies that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

President Washington turned this into an in-person, Speech-from-the-Throne style event (except standing up instead of having a throne). But George Washington had the excuse of being George Washington. John Adams didn’t have that excuse but he also spoke in person.

Then Jefferson changed the message to a written report, and other Presidents followed this humble example, not appearing in person…until Woodrow Wilson. Then, with a few interruptions, the message was in person and came to assume the trappings of Speech from the Throne Meets Campaign Rally.

For background (though I’m not saying they agree with my analysis), see

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/04/1154134314/state-of-the-union-address-2023-history

[John F. Carr]

He could have been on script but reading from a different draft than his press team had.