Support of the development and sale of lab-grown meat is also an interesting topic when looking at Trump's associates. While DJT hasn't said much about it, much of the MAGA crowd (including Donald Jr.) openly support legislation banning it. Larry Kudlow is also upset over plant-based beer for some reason. To its credit, the Heritage Foun…
Support of the development and sale of lab-grown meat is also an interesting topic when looking at Trump's associates. While DJT hasn't said much about it, much of the MAGA crowd (including Donald Jr.) openly support legislation banning it. Larry Kudlow is also upset over plant-based beer for some reason. To its credit, the Heritage Foundation has generally opposed similar legislation, albeit on anti-protectionism grounds rather than moral grounds. To my knowledge Harris has been pretty quiet on this particular topic, though Biden has been somewhat supportive with at least one Executive Order supporting it (or so I have seen claimed).
Switching gears, how much discretion did Harris have in deciding to take on those two mentioned cases as AG of California? Was her defense in those cases necessitated by her position, or do they reflect an active decision on her part to defend the rights of animals?
They are an active decision. The AG has a legal obligation to defend the state, but there are many instances where the AG (at the state or federal level) declines to vigorously offer a defense to the state's position. Harris did not do that. She defended the laws aggressively.
Biden did the opposite. He had no obligation to intervene on Prop 12, and it's relatively rare to see Presidents act in that fashion. A dispute about state law has relatively little to do with a President's legal domain. But Biden put his thumb on the scale, and in a very aggressive way. I have no doubt this affected the Justice he had just nominated, and the animals were very close to suffering a defeat as a result.
Biden is, in my opinion, one of the worst Presidents in recent history on animal rights, partly for that reason. It is one of the many reasons I am grateful he stepped down from his campaign.
Support of the development and sale of lab-grown meat is also an interesting topic when looking at Trump's associates. While DJT hasn't said much about it, much of the MAGA crowd (including Donald Jr.) openly support legislation banning it. Larry Kudlow is also upset over plant-based beer for some reason. To its credit, the Heritage Foundation has generally opposed similar legislation, albeit on anti-protectionism grounds rather than moral grounds. To my knowledge Harris has been pretty quiet on this particular topic, though Biden has been somewhat supportive with at least one Executive Order supporting it (or so I have seen claimed).
Switching gears, how much discretion did Harris have in deciding to take on those two mentioned cases as AG of California? Was her defense in those cases necessitated by her position, or do they reflect an active decision on her part to defend the rights of animals?
They are an active decision. The AG has a legal obligation to defend the state, but there are many instances where the AG (at the state or federal level) declines to vigorously offer a defense to the state's position. Harris did not do that. She defended the laws aggressively.
Biden did the opposite. He had no obligation to intervene on Prop 12, and it's relatively rare to see Presidents act in that fashion. A dispute about state law has relatively little to do with a President's legal domain. But Biden put his thumb on the scale, and in a very aggressive way. I have no doubt this affected the Justice he had just nominated, and the animals were very close to suffering a defeat as a result.
Biden is, in my opinion, one of the worst Presidents in recent history on animal rights, partly for that reason. It is one of the many reasons I am grateful he stepped down from his campaign.