In a recent dissent, Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the right to vote and serve on juries belonged "only to virtuous citizens." Her opinion also suggests that all civic rights are subject to virtue-based exceptions.
Let's also be honest, "virtuous citizens" is just another shitty dog whistle. What the piece of shit means, is that only wealthy, straight, white, male Christians have rights.
Murkowski: “For weeks I have stated that I do not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to an election. But today the President exercised his constitutional authority..I welcome the opportunity to meet with the Supreme Court nominee, just as I did in” ‘16
And Murkowski has already folded like the bad hand of cards all Republicans are.
14th and 15th amendments do not prohibit the/a state from limiting the right to vote based on religion. Sure the first should... but like. Does it?
The 14th means that a state that restricts voting loses representatives... but if it doesn’t lose senators... and if all you need is the senate
Yes.
Excuse me, I should qualify that.
If one is not an absolute fucking idiot incapable of comprehending the language that the Constitution is written in? Then the answer is yes.
But then that would also imply that there's no constitutionally guaranteed right to have a personal arsenal that the founding fathers would have been dumbfounded by on top of any jackass packing heat because they wanna have the shooty bangs bangs because the shooty bang bangs are fun being blatantly not the intent of that particular amendment so really I'm not sure it matters.
Aside from a few restrictions voting eligibility is left up to the states, race, color, previous servitude*, and sex are generally the list unless there are other rules from state law and constitution.
Now generally there is an assumed individual right to vote this has been expressed many times in many cases. An individual, therefor, may only have their suffrage impinged for individual reasons and by due process.
But the current appointment we are talking about does not believe there is an individual right to vote. Which is to say that restrictions like poll taxes could be legal (poor people are of insufficient character to vote ergo...) and also religious restrictions or any other restriction you could think of to ensure that only whites could vote.
*aside interesting argument here that because the constitution recognizes that slavery is the condition of being incarcerated for a crime that the 14th would make restricting felon voting unconstitutional.
Murkowski: “For weeks I have stated that I do not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to an election. But today the President exercised his constitutional authority..I welcome the opportunity to meet with the Supreme Court nominee, just as I did in” ‘16
And Murkowski has already folded like the bad hand of cards all Republicans are.
Yeah, people need to stop giving these fuckers the benefit of the doubt.
If a Republican can be a hypocritical ratfucking bastard, they should be considered such until such time they prove otherwise.
We've had one example otherwise in the past four years (McCain's repeal vote), and that's it.
As impeachment and the Kavanaugh confirmation showed, "I have grave concerns about this policy/procedure", followed by "Welp, I voiced my concerns, now I'm going to vote party line" is the standard policy of 'moderate Republicans'.
If you concede on technicality and don't stand on principle, you're fucking worse than the partisan shitheads like Cruz and McConnell. Because they don’t try to convince people they aren't partisan shitheads.
It is theoretically 51-49 in favor of confirmation at the moment. Collins might flip back to a yes if she thinks she can't beat Gideon. Murkowski will talk to Barrett and probably vote no, because she is basically pro-Roe. Dunno where you'd even maybe get a couple more Republicans though. This is what they sold their souls to Trump for.
I agree that this, depending on when the vote is held and the way Collins / Murkowski think the vote is going will be a straight party line vote or at most a strategic defection or two.
But we can make it as painful as possible. Kavanaugh basically broke Flake and he came as close to having a 'we are the baddies' moment as we could hope.
Assume this is a losing battle and make it as costly and painful as possible, then hopefully regroup and make them pay in January.
I am surprised they are even having a hearing. It suggests they still care about appearances. Maybe they think Barrett will have enough charisma to get party voters all on board? The "less than 30 days" attack during hearings seems worse than "confirmed without a hearing" and then trying to pivot the media back to another issue.
It is so hard to tell if moves are meant to rile the base or to placate moderates uncomfortable with breaking norms. I wonder who shows up to the hearing, the textualist or the champion for god.
Edit: Watched her nomination speech and trying to guess at how she'd do in hearings based on her opinions was silly. She talked about her family and civic service almost the entire time, very charming.
I am surprised they are even having a hearing. It suggests they still care about appearances. Maybe they think Barrett will have enough charisma to get party voters all on board? The "less than 30 days" attack during hearings seems worse than "confirmed without a hearing" and then trying to pivot the media back to another issue.
It is so hard to tell if moves are meant to rile the base or to placate moderates uncomfortable with breaking norms. I wonder who shows up to the hearing, the textualist or the champion for god.
Edit: Watched her nomination speech and trying to guess at how she'd do in hearings based on her opinions was silly. She talked about her family and civic service almost the entire time, very charming.
The hearings will turn it from being about her policies and how the process undermines the government to about her as a person.
It's one reason why Dems were considering not attending the hearing.
I am surprised they are even having a hearing. It suggests they still care about appearances. Maybe they think Barrett will have enough charisma to get party voters all on board? The "less than 30 days" attack during hearings seems worse than "confirmed without a hearing" and then trying to pivot the media back to another issue.
It is so hard to tell if moves are meant to rile the base or to placate moderates uncomfortable with breaking norms. I wonder who shows up to the hearing, the textualist or the champion for god.
Edit: Watched her nomination speech and trying to guess at how she'd do in hearings based on her opinions was silly. She talked about her family and civic service almost the entire time, very charming.
The hearings will turn it from being about her policies and how the process undermines the government to about her as a person.
It's one reason why Dems were considering not attending the hearing.
I'm of two minds here.
On the one hand, if they don't attend, they can use the "We don't have time remaining before the election to properly vet the nominee, so the whole confirmation is just performative bullshit" reasoning.
On the other hand, if they show up, they might be able to expose how flawed a candidate, and therefore, how much of a travesty it is.
Nothing's going to change the result, the "moderate" Republicans have shown their true face. But I think that the Democrats should show up, even if it just keeps Collins, Tillis, Graham, Gardner, etc, stuck in confirmation hearings, instead of on the campaign trail.
Drag that shit right out, and make those fuckers sit there, pissing away time.
It's the kind of shit Republicans have done. Make this cost them as much as possible.
I am surprised they are even having a hearing. It suggests they still care about appearances. Maybe they think Barrett will have enough charisma to get party voters all on board? The "less than 30 days" attack during hearings seems worse than "confirmed without a hearing" and then trying to pivot the media back to another issue.
It is so hard to tell if moves are meant to rile the base or to placate moderates uncomfortable with breaking norms. I wonder who shows up to the hearing, the textualist or the champion for god.
Edit: Watched her nomination speech and trying to guess at how she'd do in hearings based on her opinions was silly. She talked about her family and civic service almost the entire time, very charming.
The hearings will turn it from being about her policies and how the process undermines the government to about her as a person.
It's one reason why Dems were considering not attending the hearing.
The more I review her record the less I understand her as a scorched earth replacement if you expect to lose the presidency for a while. She seems less friendly to government fuckery than I expected. If she had gone up before Kavanaugh I think this appointment would be a lot less contested, he really fucked the reputation of the Court.
Does she have an opinion anywhere on the impenetrable executive theory that Barr maintains? That and qualified immunity are the issues I worry most about.
Tumin on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I am surprised they are even having a hearing. It suggests they still care about appearances. Maybe they think Barrett will have enough charisma to get party voters all on board? The "less than 30 days" attack during hearings seems worse than "confirmed without a hearing" and then trying to pivot the media back to another issue.
It is so hard to tell if moves are meant to rile the base or to placate moderates uncomfortable with breaking norms. I wonder who shows up to the hearing, the textualist or the champion for god.
Edit: Watched her nomination speech and trying to guess at how she'd do in hearings based on her opinions was silly. She talked about her family and civic service almost the entire time, very charming.
The hearings will turn it from being about her policies and how the process undermines the government to about her as a person.
It's one reason why Dems were considering not attending the hearing.
The more I review her record the less I understand her as a scorched earth replacement if you expect to lose the presidency for a while. She seems less friendly to government fuckery than I expected. If she had gone up before Kavanaugh I think this appointment would be a lot less contested, he really fucked the reputation of the Court.
Does she have an opinion anywhere on the impenetrable executive theory that Barr maintains? That and qualified immunity are the issues I worry most about.
How is she not scorched earth? She's open to remove the right to vote from 'nonvirtuous' classes of citizens.
I am surprised they are even having a hearing. It suggests they still care about appearances. Maybe they think Barrett will have enough charisma to get party voters all on board? The "less than 30 days" attack during hearings seems worse than "confirmed without a hearing" and then trying to pivot the media back to another issue.
It is so hard to tell if moves are meant to rile the base or to placate moderates uncomfortable with breaking norms. I wonder who shows up to the hearing, the textualist or the champion for god.
Edit: Watched her nomination speech and trying to guess at how she'd do in hearings based on her opinions was silly. She talked about her family and civic service almost the entire time, very charming.
The hearings will turn it from being about her policies and how the process undermines the government to about her as a person.
It's one reason why Dems were considering not attending the hearing.
The more I review her record the less I understand her as a scorched earth replacement if you expect to lose the presidency for a while. She seems less friendly to government fuckery than I expected. If she had gone up before Kavanaugh I think this appointment would be a lot less contested, he really fucked the reputation of the Court.
Does she have an opinion anywhere on the impenetrable executive theory that Barr maintains? That and qualified immunity are the issues I worry most about.
How is she not scorched earth? She's open to remove the right to vote from 'nonvirtuous' classes of citizens.
Felony dienfranchisement is standing practice, not some new legal theory. We already do the thing, on a state by state basis.
I dont really want to reargue the last page. I dont think it was a dogwhistle to take a more expansive view of disenfranchisement, I agree that the right to vote isn't enumerated in the bill of rights and that it should be added and be fully unlimited. I'm a hard sell on her desire to expand the definition of "virtuous citizen" further than non-felon.
I am surprised they are even having a hearing. It suggests they still care about appearances. Maybe they think Barrett will have enough charisma to get party voters all on board? The "less than 30 days" attack during hearings seems worse than "confirmed without a hearing" and then trying to pivot the media back to another issue.
It is so hard to tell if moves are meant to rile the base or to placate moderates uncomfortable with breaking norms. I wonder who shows up to the hearing, the textualist or the champion for god.
Edit: Watched her nomination speech and trying to guess at how she'd do in hearings based on her opinions was silly. She talked about her family and civic service almost the entire time, very charming.
The hearings will turn it from being about her policies and how the process undermines the government to about her as a person.
It's one reason why Dems were considering not attending the hearing.
"Her as a person" is unfortunately a losing battle. She's a well educated woman who graduated to of her class from a prestigious law school and has a strong background in constitutional law, and she's generally well spoken. She is, on paper, well qualified for the position.
She's also a partisan beast with terrible opinions who adheres to a wacky religious doctrine and idolizes one of the worst SCOTUS justices in recent memory, but none of that can be brought up without appearing like partisan attacks or religious discrimination.
The Dems don't have a good play here, other than attack the process and hope it impacts the election in their favor.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I am surprised they are even having a hearing. It suggests they still care about appearances. Maybe they think Barrett will have enough charisma to get party voters all on board? The "less than 30 days" attack during hearings seems worse than "confirmed without a hearing" and then trying to pivot the media back to another issue.
It is so hard to tell if moves are meant to rile the base or to placate moderates uncomfortable with breaking norms. I wonder who shows up to the hearing, the textualist or the champion for god.
Edit: Watched her nomination speech and trying to guess at how she'd do in hearings based on her opinions was silly. She talked about her family and civic service almost the entire time, very charming.
The hearings will turn it from being about her policies and how the process undermines the government to about her as a person.
It's one reason why Dems were considering not attending the hearing.
The more I review her record the less I understand her as a scorched earth replacement if you expect to lose the presidency for a while. She seems less friendly to government fuckery than I expected. If she had gone up before Kavanaugh I think this appointment would be a lot less contested, he really fucked the reputation of the Court.
Does she have an opinion anywhere on the impenetrable executive theory that Barr maintains? That and qualified immunity are the issues I worry most about.
How is she not scorched earth? She's open to remove the right to vote from 'nonvirtuous' classes of citizens.
Felony dienfranchisement is standing practice, not some new legal theory. We already do the thing, on a state by state basis.
I believe you have missed the dog whistle in virtuous citizens. There is no standard legal definition for it. That means it is whatever she defines as a virtuous citizens. Historically, christianity has defined rather a lot of people as not virtuous enough to be treated as equals. I am not looking forward to having to fight against that with this supreme court.
I am surprised they are even having a hearing. It suggests they still care about appearances. Maybe they think Barrett will have enough charisma to get party voters all on board? The "less than 30 days" attack during hearings seems worse than "confirmed without a hearing" and then trying to pivot the media back to another issue.
It is so hard to tell if moves are meant to rile the base or to placate moderates uncomfortable with breaking norms. I wonder who shows up to the hearing, the textualist or the champion for god.
Edit: Watched her nomination speech and trying to guess at how she'd do in hearings based on her opinions was silly. She talked about her family and civic service almost the entire time, very charming.
The hearings will turn it from being about her policies and how the process undermines the government to about her as a person.
It's one reason why Dems were considering not attending the hearing.
"Her as a person" is unfortunately a losing battle. She's a well educated woman who graduated to of her class from a prestigious law school and has a strong background in constitutional law, and she's generally well spoken. She is, on paper, well qualified for the position.
She's also a partisan beast with terrible opinions who adheres to a wacky religious doctrine and idolizes one of the worst SCOTUS justices in recent memory, but none of that can be brought up without appearing like partisan attacks or religious discrimination.
The Dems don't have a good play here, other than attack the process and hope it impacts the election in their favor.
The Dems have an easy play and it's the one they are already making: tie her to attempts to kill the ACA. She's got written comments on it and everything.
I don't find that disrespectful. It's just ... lame. It's every old person from a comedy film trying to look hip and cool for comedic effect. She's done literally nothing that would warrant a nickname and the aren't even trying to come up with their own but just steal someone else's. It's pathetic on every level.
It's just great watching everyone wake up to the fact that the time to do something about this was four fucking years ago.
*400
Maybe, but we had a more recent opportunity. That people squandered, because they weren't paying attention or couldn't be bothered, or had concerns, or just didn't trust her, or didn't like the process, or her emails.
I may end up screaming that last at whoever's next to me when we all get herded into the camps.
+1
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I don't find that disrespectful. It's just ... lame. It's every old person from a comedy film trying to look hip and cool for comedic effect. She's done literally nothing that would warrant a nickname and the aren't even trying to come up with their own but just steal someone else's. It's pathetic on every level.
Conservative humor in a nutshell; simple minded, spiteful jokes, for simple minded, spiteful people.
She's also a partisan beast with terrible opinions who adheres to a wacky religious doctrine and idolizes one of the worst SCOTUS justices in recent memory, but none of that can be brought up without appearing like partisan attacks or religious discrimination.
I think the bolded is where the Dems ought to strike at her. The battle is more or less lost, but that doesn't mean they can't do a tactical withdrawal and delaying action by roasting her opinions on open coals in the chambers. And it short circuits the fight the GOP wants to have over her religion and gender. Though it is rather comical to me that a Trump led GOP is suddenly going to become a champion of women's rights pushing for a women justice that submits to her husband as part of her religion.
Dark_Side on
+5
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I don't find that disrespectful. It's just ... lame. It's every old person from a comedy film trying to look hip and cool for comedic effect. She's done literally nothing that would warrant a nickname and the aren't even trying to come up with their own but just steal someone else's. It's pathetic on every level.
Conservative humor in a nutshell; simple minded, spiteful jokes, for simple minded, spiteful people.
She's also a partisan beast with terrible opinions who adheres to a wacky religious doctrine and idolizes one of the worst SCOTUS justices in recent memory, but none of that can be brought up without appearing like partisan attacks or religious discrimination.
I think the bolded is where the Dems ought to strike at her. The battle is more or less lost, but that doesn't mean they can't do a tactical withdrawal and delaying action by roasting her opinions on open coals in the chambers. And it short circuits the fight the GOP wants to have over her religion and gender. Though it is rather comical to me that a Trump led GOP is suddenly going to become a champion of women's right pushing for a women justice that submits to her husband as part of her religion.
Yeah I mean
Are we planning on shaming them into voting against her?
Who knows who they'll grab next; what's John Yoo up to nowadays?
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
I don't find that disrespectful. It's just ... lame. It's every old person from a comedy film trying to look hip and cool for comedic effect. She's done literally nothing that would warrant a nickname and the aren't even trying to come up with their own but just steal someone else's. It's pathetic on every level.
Conservative humor in a nutshell; simple minded, spiteful jokes, for simple minded, spiteful people.
She's also a partisan beast with terrible opinions who adheres to a wacky religious doctrine and idolizes one of the worst SCOTUS justices in recent memory, but none of that can be brought up without appearing like partisan attacks or religious discrimination.
I think the bolded is where the Dems ought to strike at her. The battle is more or less lost, but that doesn't mean they can't do a tactical withdrawal and delaying action by roasting her opinions on open coals in the chambers. And it short circuits the fight the GOP wants to have over her religion and gender. Though it is rather comical to me that a Trump led GOP is suddenly going to become a champion of women's right pushing for a women justice that submits to her husband as part of her religion.
Yeah I mean
Are we planning on shaming them into voting against her?
Who knows who they'll grab next; what's John Yoo up to nowadays?
Recently? John Yoo got on the bandwagon and wrote a ridiculous Trump knob polishing book in which he argues that Trump's the great defender of the constitution by amassing executive power. So yeah, probably next in line. But beyond that, these people have no shame, no scruples, and what was wrong yesterday can be right today. But that doesn't mean you don't go in there and at least point out that yeah, your shits fucked, because at least then you're using your seat at the table versus just abandoning it.
Last count I saw, nearly a supermajority of the country (63%) opposes this bullshit. I don't get the pell mell rush to do this, considering it's all but guaranteed to screw them electorally in places where they are already on their heels. Why not wait until after the election when they either win, in which case they can proceed at their leisure, or they lose in which case they can do it during the lame duck and face no punishment? What good does it do to cede even more legislative power to Dems while at the same time giving them even more ammo to convince the nation that court packing isn't such a bad idea?
Last count I saw, nearly a supermajority of the country (63%) opposes this bullshit. I don't get the pell mell rush to do this, considering it's all but guaranteed to screw them electorally in places where they are already on their heels. Why not wait until after the election when they either win, in which case they can proceed at their leisure, or they lose in which case they can do it during the lame duck and face no punishment? What good does it do to cede even more legislative power to Dems while at the same time giving them even more ammo to convince the nation that court packing isn't such a bad idea?
Because they need to "win" the election! Also ACA case is 11/10.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Last count I saw, nearly a supermajority of the country (63%) opposes this bullshit. I don't get the pell mell rush to do this, considering it's all but guaranteed to screw them electorally in places where they are already on their heels. Why not wait until after the election when they either win, in which case they can proceed at their leisure, or they lose in which case they can do it during the lame duck and face no punishment? What good does it do to cede even more legislative power to Dems while at the same time giving them even more ammo to convince the nation that court packing isn't such a bad idea?
Because they need to "win" the election! Also ACA case is 11/10.
Yeah this is pretty much about winning the ACA repeal case. The fact that it will also set women's rights and probably minority and gay rights back several decades is just a bonus. If they're extra lucky it will also further erode the separation of (christian) church and state!
If anything it seems like it just pushes the democrats to pass an honest to goodness public insurance plan (and if that gets ruled unconstitutional, then that seems like something that could be thrown back as a justification for court packing.)
If anything it seems like it just pushes the democrats to pass an honest to goodness public insurance plan (and if that gets ruled unconstitutional, then that seems like something that could be thrown back as a justification for court packing.)
Which is why the case was punted til *after* the election. There is no plan there is no replacement they just don't like it and that's reason enough to rabidly attack it.
Phoenix-D on
+6
Options
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
If anything it seems like it just pushes the democrats to pass an honest to goodness public insurance plan (and if that gets ruled unconstitutional, then that seems like something that could be thrown back as a justification for court packing.)
Which is why the case was punted til *after* the election. There is no plan there is no replacement they just don't like it and that's reason enough to rabidly attack it.
It's very much a "dog finally catches car" kind of situation for most of the true believers. The folks that stand to gain from this (insurance companies, and capital systems that depend on indentured labor) don't want to replace it because it will take the shackles back off and put Americans back into a position where they can only get "affordable" health care through their employer.
Posts
But gun rights are absolute.
The 14th means that a state that restricts voting loses representatives... but if it doesn’t lose senators... and if all you need is the senate
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
And Murkowski has already folded like the bad hand of cards all Republicans are.
Yes.
Excuse me, I should qualify that.
If one is not an absolute fucking idiot incapable of comprehending the language that the Constitution is written in? Then the answer is yes.
But then that would also imply that there's no constitutionally guaranteed right to have a personal arsenal that the founding fathers would have been dumbfounded by on top of any jackass packing heat because they wanna have the shooty bangs bangs because the shooty bang bangs are fun being blatantly not the intent of that particular amendment so really I'm not sure it matters.
Aside from a few restrictions voting eligibility is left up to the states, race, color, previous servitude*, and sex are generally the list unless there are other rules from state law and constitution.
Now generally there is an assumed individual right to vote this has been expressed many times in many cases. An individual, therefor, may only have their suffrage impinged for individual reasons and by due process.
But the current appointment we are talking about does not believe there is an individual right to vote. Which is to say that restrictions like poll taxes could be legal (poor people are of insufficient character to vote ergo...) and also religious restrictions or any other restriction you could think of to ensure that only whites could vote.
*aside interesting argument here that because the constitution recognizes that slavery is the condition of being incarcerated for a crime that the 14th would make restricting felon voting unconstitutional.
Yeah, people need to stop giving these fuckers the benefit of the doubt.
If a Republican can be a hypocritical ratfucking bastard, they should be considered such until such time they prove otherwise.
We've had one example otherwise in the past four years (McCain's repeal vote), and that's it.
As impeachment and the Kavanaugh confirmation showed, "I have grave concerns about this policy/procedure", followed by "Welp, I voiced my concerns, now I'm going to vote party line" is the standard policy of 'moderate Republicans'.
If you concede on technicality and don't stand on principle, you're fucking worse than the partisan shitheads like Cruz and McConnell. Because they don’t try to convince people they aren't partisan shitheads.
I agree that this, depending on when the vote is held and the way Collins / Murkowski think the vote is going will be a straight party line vote or at most a strategic defection or two.
But we can make it as painful as possible. Kavanaugh basically broke Flake and he came as close to having a 'we are the baddies' moment as we could hope.
Assume this is a losing battle and make it as costly and painful as possible, then hopefully regroup and make them pay in January.
Voters in swing states don't want the seat filled before the election and really hate the idea of filling the seat in the lame duck.
It is so hard to tell if moves are meant to rile the base or to placate moderates uncomfortable with breaking norms. I wonder who shows up to the hearing, the textualist or the champion for god.
Edit: Watched her nomination speech and trying to guess at how she'd do in hearings based on her opinions was silly. She talked about her family and civic service almost the entire time, very charming.
That's far later than I expected. I figured she'd be confirmed before then.
The hearings will turn it from being about her policies and how the process undermines the government to about her as a person.
It's one reason why Dems were considering not attending the hearing.
I'm of two minds here.
On the one hand, if they don't attend, they can use the "We don't have time remaining before the election to properly vet the nominee, so the whole confirmation is just performative bullshit" reasoning.
On the other hand, if they show up, they might be able to expose how flawed a candidate, and therefore, how much of a travesty it is.
Nothing's going to change the result, the "moderate" Republicans have shown their true face. But I think that the Democrats should show up, even if it just keeps Collins, Tillis, Graham, Gardner, etc, stuck in confirmation hearings, instead of on the campaign trail.
Drag that shit right out, and make those fuckers sit there, pissing away time.
It's the kind of shit Republicans have done. Make this cost them as much as possible.
The more I review her record the less I understand her as a scorched earth replacement if you expect to lose the presidency for a while. She seems less friendly to government fuckery than I expected. If she had gone up before Kavanaugh I think this appointment would be a lot less contested, he really fucked the reputation of the Court.
Does she have an opinion anywhere on the impenetrable executive theory that Barr maintains? That and qualified immunity are the issues I worry most about.
How is she not scorched earth? She's open to remove the right to vote from 'nonvirtuous' classes of citizens.
Felony dienfranchisement is standing practice, not some new legal theory. We already do the thing, on a state by state basis.
I dont really want to reargue the last page. I dont think it was a dogwhistle to take a more expansive view of disenfranchisement, I agree that the right to vote isn't enumerated in the bill of rights and that it should be added and be fully unlimited. I'm a hard sell on her desire to expand the definition of "virtuous citizen" further than non-felon.
"Her as a person" is unfortunately a losing battle. She's a well educated woman who graduated to of her class from a prestigious law school and has a strong background in constitutional law, and she's generally well spoken. She is, on paper, well qualified for the position.
She's also a partisan beast with terrible opinions who adheres to a wacky religious doctrine and idolizes one of the worst SCOTUS justices in recent memory, but none of that can be brought up without appearing like partisan attacks or religious discrimination.
The Dems don't have a good play here, other than attack the process and hope it impacts the election in their favor.
I believe you have missed the dog whistle in virtuous citizens. There is no standard legal definition for it. That means it is whatever she defines as a virtuous citizens. Historically, christianity has defined rather a lot of people as not virtuous enough to be treated as equals. I am not looking forward to having to fight against that with this supreme court.
The Dems have an easy play and it's the one they are already making: tie her to attempts to kill the ACA. She's got written comments on it and everything.
(tweeter is 'pub senate committee completely failing to read the room and advertising a "notorious ACB" shirt)
not. even. in. the. ground. yet.
please tell me again republicans how you are so very respectful of her fucking legacy
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Maybe, but we had a more recent opportunity. That people squandered, because they weren't paying attention or couldn't be bothered, or had concerns, or just didn't trust her, or didn't like the process, or her emails.
I may end up screaming that last at whoever's next to me when we all get herded into the camps.
they're not, them saying so isn't meant sincerely, they're just successfully trolling
Conservative humor in a nutshell; simple minded, spiteful jokes, for simple minded, spiteful people.
I think the bolded is where the Dems ought to strike at her. The battle is more or less lost, but that doesn't mean they can't do a tactical withdrawal and delaying action by roasting her opinions on open coals in the chambers. And it short circuits the fight the GOP wants to have over her religion and gender. Though it is rather comical to me that a Trump led GOP is suddenly going to become a champion of women's rights pushing for a women justice that submits to her husband as part of her religion.
Yeah I mean
Are we planning on shaming them into voting against her?
Who knows who they'll grab next; what's John Yoo up to nowadays?
Recently? John Yoo got on the bandwagon and wrote a ridiculous Trump knob polishing book in which he argues that Trump's the great defender of the constitution by amassing executive power. So yeah, probably next in line. But beyond that, these people have no shame, no scruples, and what was wrong yesterday can be right today. But that doesn't mean you don't go in there and at least point out that yeah, your shits fucked, because at least then you're using your seat at the table versus just abandoning it.
Because they need to "win" the election! Also ACA case is 11/10.
Yeah this is pretty much about winning the ACA repeal case. The fact that it will also set women's rights and probably minority and gay rights back several decades is just a bonus. If they're extra lucky it will also further erode the separation of (christian) church and state!
So, you repeal the ACA, then what?
Its like
Blow up the US Health Insurance market
??????
Profit
If anything it seems like it just pushes the democrats to pass an honest to goodness public insurance plan (and if that gets ruled unconstitutional, then that seems like something that could be thrown back as a justification for court packing.)
Which is why the case was punted til *after* the election. There is no plan there is no replacement they just don't like it and that's reason enough to rabidly attack it.
It's very much a "dog finally catches car" kind of situation for most of the true believers. The folks that stand to gain from this (insurance companies, and capital systems that depend on indentured labor) don't want to replace it because it will take the shackles back off and put Americans back into a position where they can only get "affordable" health care through their employer.