Seems to finish with some sort of line about "Can't we at least get through the current election?" Says he wants to get through some theoretical cooling off period.
If you can't say this shit out loud now, I figure there's long odds to fixing the supreme court if we win enough in November. If. Not sure though, there's wiggle room in Manchin's statements.
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.)
They blow up the ACA, I can tell you from experience there's gonna be a ton of new people unemployed whose jobs were only created by the ACA. Who won't have jobs elsewhere in the industry because those jobs went away when the ACA was first passed.
Seems to finish with some sort of line about "Can't we at least get through the current election?" Says he wants to get through some theoretical cooling off period.
If you can't say this shit out loud now, I figure there's long odds to fixing the supreme court if we win enough in November. If. Not sure though, there's wiggle room in Manchin's statements.
Still hoping for "average sized polling error in favor of Democrats, landslide electoral college victory, and Manchin is irrelevant in the Senate". That's the best hope for not just SCotUS, but the "having a democracy" thing as a whole.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
That's possible, but the getting Democratic party to pursue an action as dramatic as adding supreme court seats is going to be extremely difficult if not done with absolutely all of their members. Doing it on a straight party line vote would be hard enough.
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.
Also them doing it after the election (if they lose) gives democrats more cover to lack the court.
I don't know if the shackles are off, the ACA plans available to me are essentially $400 monthly donations.
The pre 2008 status quo was much worse.
Baseline $1000+ for something that would bankrupt you _a little less_ than not having it.
If you had any gap in coverage greater than 60 days, that premium doubles or more.
Oh and when you do make a claim they will spend $$$ hiring a PI to hunt down every bit of evidence you had a "preexisting condition" and use it to cancel your insurance and not pay.
(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
Managing to take something noxious and somehow make it even worse is pretty on point for the GOP
Is The Notorious B.I.G. noxious?
I found appropriating iconic black art to sell hand bags and shit to white liberal fans of a sinecured official with a pretty mediocre record on diversity re: black citizens to be so.
Naturally, the GOP manages to be even worse on this point.
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Seems to finish with some sort of line about "Can't we at least get through the current election?" Says he wants to get through some theoretical cooling off period.
If you can't say this shit out loud now, I figure there's long odds to fixing the supreme court if we win enough in November. If. Not sure though, there's wiggle room in Manchin's statements.
While I am loathe to give Manchin a single molecule of doubt, I don't think what he's saying matters much right now. Barret ain't in the seat just yet. "Court packing" as a term has just barely started to permeate public discourse. Let's see what he says after the public has chewed it a while and Barret says or does some bullshit ruling.
+1
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
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!
I personally guarantee it will erode the separation of church and state. She's on public record having stated her belief that the Bible comes before (outranks) the Constitution.
That alone should disqualify her from a seat on the Supreme Court! You can't fundamentally disagree with the first amendment of the Constitution and swear on the book you believe to be more important than said Constitution to uphold that same Constitution!
+23
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Amy Coney Barrett's church is scrubbing all references to her and her family off their website. This is possibly an attempt to boost her chances of getting on the Supreme Court, since her "Catholicism" is apparently heavily authoritarian Pentecostal and even they are aware that they've a bunch of kooks, it seems.
Her "Catholicism" is essentially The Handmaids Tale
Which is just bizarre. I believe Michelle Bachmann followed a similar dogma.
Which makes "Vote for me, so I can cede all authority to my husband when making decisions, as God intended." really weird.
Why isn't Barrett's husband being nominated for the court, if by this religious teaching, he'll be the authority?
I disagree with the whole concept of a woman being subservient to a man, but I just can't mentally square if that is a woman's thinking (hey, her choice), how a judicial or legislative career is feasible.
+7
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Her "Catholicism" is essentially The Handmaids Tale
Which is just bizarre. I believe Michelle Bachmann followed a similar dogma.
Which makes "Vote for me, so I can cede all authority to my husband when making decisions, as God intended." really weird.
Why isn't Barrett's husband being nominated for the court, if by this religious teaching, he'll be the authority?
I disagree with the whole concept of a woman being subservient to a man, but I just can't mentally square if that is a woman's thinking (hey, her choice), how a judicial or legislative career is feasible.
Serena Joy had a role to play in bringing about Gilead. ACB sees herself the same way, but without the unhappy ending to her own story.
Her "Catholicism" is essentially The Handmaids Tale
Which is just bizarre. I believe Michelle Bachmann followed a similar dogma.
Which makes "Vote for me, so I can cede all authority to my husband when making decisions, as God intended." really weird.
Why isn't Barrett's husband being nominated for the court, if by this religious teaching, he'll be the authority?
I disagree with the whole concept of a woman being subservient to a man, but I just can't mentally square if that is a woman's thinking (hey, her choice), how a judicial or legislative career is feasible.
Serena Joy had a role to play in bringing about Gilead. ACB sees herself the same way, but without the unhappy ending to her own story.
Sadly, (or, I suppose in non 2020 perspective, happily) our story is not yet over.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited October 2020
None of these control rules apply to the ruling class in the GOP's eyes, specifically white wealth people from rural states. When their dogma had power in the 1800s they still had abortions, affairs, women who were empowered, and all of the things they are so fervently against now. But it was a luxury only they got to have as the special chosen rich. That's what they want again.
The trappings of faith here are just the sugar coating on the poison pill. Its there to make it easier to go down for the folks they will be enslaving. Nothing more.
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, added her name to a list of "citizens of Michiana" who signed a "right to life ad" sponsored by a group that opposes abortion that appeared in a local newspaper in 2006.
On the opposite page of the insert in the South Bend Tribune is an advertisement from the same group, the Saint Joseph County Right to Life, that called for putting "an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children."
First reported Wednesday by the National Review, the ads are the clearest sign yet that Barrett may have questioned Roe v. Wade as a law professor before she took the bench. Her views on abortion rights are of immense speculation as she is set to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court and could be a pivotal vote in potential challenges to Roe.
The full statement on the page where Barrett's name appears reads, "We the following citizens of Michiana oppose abortion on demand and support the right to life from fertilization to a natural death."
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, added her name to a list of "citizens of Michiana" who signed a "right to life ad" sponsored by a group that opposes abortion that appeared in a local newspaper in 2006.
On the opposite page of the insert in the South Bend Tribune is an advertisement from the same group, the Saint Joseph County Right to Life, that called for putting "an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children."
First reported Wednesday by the National Review, the ads are the clearest sign yet that Barrett may have questioned Roe v. Wade as a law professor before she took the bench. Her views on abortion rights are of immense speculation as she is set to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court and could be a pivotal vote in potential challenges to Roe.
The full statement on the page where Barrett's name appears reads, "We the following citizens of Michiana oppose abortion on demand and support the right to life from fertilization to a natural death."
Hey look, she also thinks that people must be compelled to endure agonizing deaths costing millions of dollars without the right to die. Can't be trusted to make your own choices there either if you are an adult.
Additionally (not mentioned in this article), the group that published this ad also wants to criminalize the destruction of extra embryos produced during in-vitro fertilization, a change that would effectively outlaw in-vitro.
Additionally (not mentioned in this article), the group that published this ad also wants to criminalize the destruction of extra embryos produced during in-vitro fertilization, a change that would effectively outlaw in-vitro.
These people are irredeemable assholes and I wish I could force them to shut up.
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, added her name to a list of "citizens of Michiana" who signed a "right to life ad" sponsored by a group that opposes abortion that appeared in a local newspaper in 2006.
On the opposite page of the insert in the South Bend Tribune is an advertisement from the same group, the Saint Joseph County Right to Life, that called for putting "an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children."
First reported Wednesday by the National Review, the ads are the clearest sign yet that Barrett may have questioned Roe v. Wade as a law professor before she took the bench. Her views on abortion rights are of immense speculation as she is set to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court and could be a pivotal vote in potential challenges to Roe.
The full statement on the page where Barrett's name appears reads, "We the following citizens of Michiana oppose abortion on demand and support the right to life from fertilization to a natural death."
Hey look, she also thinks that people must be compelled to endure agonizing deaths costing millions of dollars without the right to die. Can't be trusted to make your own choices there either if you are an adult.
Trump was yelling in the debate demanding a cite from Biden for her opposition to abortion rights, good to know he has one now!
Her "Catholicism" is essentially The Handmaids Tale
Which is just bizarre. I believe Michelle Bachmann followed a similar dogma.
Which makes "Vote for me, so I can cede all authority to my husband when making decisions, as God intended." really weird.
Why isn't Barrett's husband being nominated for the court, if by this religious teaching, he'll be the authority?
I disagree with the whole concept of a woman being subservient to a man, but I just can't mentally square if that is a woman's thinking (hey, her choice), how a judicial or legislative career is feasible.
And Catholic politicians will all just do what the Pope says, because, after all, the Pope is the acknowledged spiritual minister of all 1.2 billion of them? ... except they don't. And neither do women in traditional, patriarchal religious communities just do what their husband says, either, even when the husband's role as a shepherd is official church dogma. Mormon women are not passive receptacles of their husbands' dictates, conservative Muslim women are not passive receptacles of their husbands' dictates, and I don't see any evidence that women in People of Praise are either--particularly not when those women are highly educated, ambitious, and independently employed in high and powerful offices. We're not talking about some random woman off the street here; we're talking about someone with the intelligence, drive, and independence to become a law professor and then a circuit judge. However she conceives of her husband in relation to her faith, she's clearly her own woman.
People love the gossip angle on her family because it's "juicy," but in reality it's just cultural othering. The problem with Barrett isn't that you can't trust a woman from People of Praise, it's that she probably thinks at a minimum that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and that the ACA is unconstitutional, which, no thank you.
There are multiple problems with Barrett, but the biggest ones are her stance on Roe v Wade, her stance on the ACA and lest we forget, that she believes that Brown v. Board of Education was decided wrongly.
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, added her name to a list of "citizens of Michiana" who signed a "right to life ad" sponsored by a group that opposes abortion that appeared in a local newspaper in 2006.
On the opposite page of the insert in the South Bend Tribune is an advertisement from the same group, the Saint Joseph County Right to Life, that called for putting "an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children."
First reported Wednesday by the National Review, the ads are the clearest sign yet that Barrett may have questioned Roe v. Wade as a law professor before she took the bench. Her views on abortion rights are of immense speculation as she is set to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court and could be a pivotal vote in potential challenges to Roe.
The full statement on the page where Barrett's name appears reads, "We the following citizens of Michiana oppose abortion on demand and support the right to life from fertilization to a natural death."
Hey look, she also thinks that people must be compelled to endure agonizing deaths costing millions of dollars without the right to die. Can't be trusted to make your own choices there either if you are an adult.
Well not exactly, Catholic doctrine allows you to refuse extreme medical intervention. But nobody cares about Catholic doctrine, I'm responding because I personally have problems with right to die because of its intersections with ableism. I'm not going to say I have all the answers, but please don't dismiss it as pure control seeking.
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, added her name to a list of "citizens of Michiana" who signed a "right to life ad" sponsored by a group that opposes abortion that appeared in a local newspaper in 2006.
On the opposite page of the insert in the South Bend Tribune is an advertisement from the same group, the Saint Joseph County Right to Life, that called for putting "an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children."
First reported Wednesday by the National Review, the ads are the clearest sign yet that Barrett may have questioned Roe v. Wade as a law professor before she took the bench. Her views on abortion rights are of immense speculation as she is set to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court and could be a pivotal vote in potential challenges to Roe.
The full statement on the page where Barrett's name appears reads, "We the following citizens of Michiana oppose abortion on demand and support the right to life from fertilization to a natural death."
Hey look, she also thinks that people must be compelled to endure agonizing deaths costing millions of dollars without the right to die. Can't be trusted to make your own choices there either if you are an adult.
Well not exactly, Catholic doctrine allows you to refuse extreme medical intervention. But nobody cares about Catholic doctrine, I'm responding because I personally have problems with right to die because of its intersections with ableism. I'm not going to say I have all the answers, but please don't dismiss it as pure control seeking.
It's control seeking because they want to impose that on people who choose otherwise. You want to follow your religious beliefs? Cool. You want to enshrine those as the law of the land? Go screw.
Religious people also talk about ableism, it is not purely about the morality of suicide. You can question their sincerity, but it doesn't really matter for what I'm talking about, the person who wrote that Guardian article is not a pro-lifer.
Religious people also talk about ableism, it is not purely about the morality of suicide. You can question their sincerity, but it doesn't really matter for what I'm talking about, the person who wrote that Guardian article is not a pro-lifer.
I don't care about the Guardian article, I care about the person who is the topic of the thread, who indeed wants to do exactly as I suggested.
Religious people also talk about ableism, it is not purely about the morality of suicide. You can question their sincerity, but it doesn't really matter for what I'm talking about, the person who wrote that Guardian article is not a pro-lifer.
I don't care about the Guardian article, I care about the person who is the topic of the thread, who indeed wants to do exactly as I suggested.
I personally care about the morality of facing the end of my life on my terms. Anyone who claims that someone who wishes to end their life is considering an immoral act and should be prevented from doing so according to the law of the land is wrong. The discussion can end, because that person is a bad person. People THINK they want to die more than they really do, it's true. However, your life is your own. Others may want to persuade you to keep going, but the final choice can and MUST be your own if you can make choices, or the choice of the person you chose to decide FOR you if you can't.
So, just because we're hitting the singularity where all threads are about the same topics...now that Trump has officially nominated Barrett the rest of the process is all up to the Senate and goes forward without any further intervention by Trump right?
My understanding is that when / if she clears the Senate floor vote she's a Justice and Trump doesn't have to sign something.
I'm not even quite clear that the President has the official power to withdraw a nomination once it's been made (although I can't imagine many circumstances where that would matter, maybe some Trump / Pence are incapacitated and President Pelosi wants to un-nominate and McConnell says nah?).
So, just because we're hitting the singularity where all threads are about the same topics...now that Trump has officially nominated Barrett the rest of the process is all up to the Senate and goes forward without any further intervention by Trump right?
My understanding is that when / if she clears the Senate floor vote she's a Justice and Trump doesn't have to sign something.
I'm not even quite clear that the President has the official power to withdraw a nomination once it's been made (although I can't imagine many circumstances where that would matter, maybe some Trump / Pence are incapacitated and President Pelosi wants to un-nominate and McConnell says nah?).
The president, or whom ever is filling the role, can withdraw a candidate. Otherwise they have a long overdue confirmation hearing for Garland to get to!
Nominations also expire at the end of a congress by convention. There is nothing preventing the senate from taking up Garland but it would be against procedure as everyone has assumed the nomination expired
So, just because we're hitting the singularity where all threads are about the same topics...now that Trump has officially nominated Barrett the rest of the process is all up to the Senate and goes forward without any further intervention by Trump right?
My understanding is that when / if she clears the Senate floor vote she's a Justice and Trump doesn't have to sign something.
I'm not even quite clear that the President has the official power to withdraw a nomination once it's been made (although I can't imagine many circumstances where that would matter, maybe some Trump / Pence are incapacitated and President Pelosi wants to un-nominate and McConnell says nah?).
The president, or whom ever is filling the role, can withdraw a candidate. Otherwise they have a long overdue confirmation hearing for Garland to get to!
More specifically the confirmed nominee is not seated until POTUS seats them. The President ultimately makes the appointment, the Senate just approves them to be appointed.
I believe that Presidents could, in theory, queue up a confirmed backup Justice at the start of every session and just never seat them.
Posts
The pre 2008 status quo was much worse.
Baseline $1000+ for something that would bankrupt you _a little less_ than not having it.
If you had any gap in coverage greater than 60 days, that premium doubles or more.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/manchin-democrats-expand-supreme-court
Seems to finish with some sort of line about "Can't we at least get through the current election?" Says he wants to get through some theoretical cooling off period.
If you can't say this shit out loud now, I figure there's long odds to fixing the supreme court if we win enough in November. If. Not sure though, there's wiggle room in Manchin's statements.
They blow up the ACA, I can tell you from experience there's gonna be a ton of new people unemployed whose jobs were only created by the ACA. Who won't have jobs elsewhere in the industry because those jobs went away when the ACA was first passed.
kermitsippingtea.jpg
Still hoping for "average sized polling error in favor of Democrats, landslide electoral college victory, and Manchin is irrelevant in the Senate". That's the best hope for not just SCotUS, but the "having a democracy" thing as a whole.
Also them doing it after the election (if they lose) gives democrats more cover to lack the court.
Oh and when you do make a claim they will spend $$$ hiring a PI to hunt down every bit of evidence you had a "preexisting condition" and use it to cancel your insurance and not pay.
They'll keep your previous premiums of course.
Managing to take something noxious and somehow make it even worse is pretty on point for the GOP
Is The Notorious B.I.G. noxious?
I found appropriating iconic black art to sell hand bags and shit to white liberal fans of a sinecured official with a pretty mediocre record on diversity re: black citizens to be so.
Naturally, the GOP manages to be even worse on this point.
It's a take on Notorious RBG.
I am guessing most people buying the stuff do not understand the original reference.
While I am loathe to give Manchin a single molecule of doubt, I don't think what he's saying matters much right now. Barret ain't in the seat just yet. "Court packing" as a term has just barely started to permeate public discourse. Let's see what he says after the public has chewed it a while and Barret says or does some bullshit ruling.
I personally guarantee it will erode the separation of church and state. She's on public record having stated her belief that the Bible comes before (outranks) the Constitution.
That alone should disqualify her from a seat on the Supreme Court! You can't fundamentally disagree with the first amendment of the Constitution and swear on the book you believe to be more important than said Constitution to uphold that same Constitution!
Which is just bizarre. I believe Michelle Bachmann followed a similar dogma.
Which makes "Vote for me, so I can cede all authority to my husband when making decisions, as God intended." really weird.
Why isn't Barrett's husband being nominated for the court, if by this religious teaching, he'll be the authority?
I disagree with the whole concept of a woman being subservient to a man, but I just can't mentally square if that is a woman's thinking (hey, her choice), how a judicial or legislative career is feasible.
Serena Joy had a role to play in bringing about Gilead. ACB sees herself the same way, but without the unhappy ending to her own story.
Sadly, (or, I suppose in non 2020 perspective, happily) our story is not yet over.
The trappings of faith here are just the sugar coating on the poison pill. Its there to make it easier to go down for the folks they will be enslaving. Nothing more.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/amy-coney-barrett-abortion-rights/index.html
Hey look, she also thinks that people must be compelled to endure agonizing deaths costing millions of dollars without the right to die. Can't be trusted to make your own choices there either if you are an adult.
These people are irredeemable assholes and I wish I could force them to shut up.
Trump was yelling in the debate demanding a cite from Biden for her opposition to abortion rights, good to know he has one now!
And Catholic politicians will all just do what the Pope says, because, after all, the Pope is the acknowledged spiritual minister of all 1.2 billion of them? ... except they don't. And neither do women in traditional, patriarchal religious communities just do what their husband says, either, even when the husband's role as a shepherd is official church dogma. Mormon women are not passive receptacles of their husbands' dictates, conservative Muslim women are not passive receptacles of their husbands' dictates, and I don't see any evidence that women in People of Praise are either--particularly not when those women are highly educated, ambitious, and independently employed in high and powerful offices. We're not talking about some random woman off the street here; we're talking about someone with the intelligence, drive, and independence to become a law professor and then a circuit judge. However she conceives of her husband in relation to her faith, she's clearly her own woman.
People love the gossip angle on her family because it's "juicy," but in reality it's just cultural othering. The problem with Barrett isn't that you can't trust a woman from People of Praise, it's that she probably thinks at a minimum that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and that the ACA is unconstitutional, which, no thank you.
It's control seeking because they want to impose that on people who choose otherwise. You want to follow your religious beliefs? Cool. You want to enshrine those as the law of the land? Go screw.
I don't care about the Guardian article, I care about the person who is the topic of the thread, who indeed wants to do exactly as I suggested.
I personally care about the morality of facing the end of my life on my terms. Anyone who claims that someone who wishes to end their life is considering an immoral act and should be prevented from doing so according to the law of the land is wrong. The discussion can end, because that person is a bad person. People THINK they want to die more than they really do, it's true. However, your life is your own. Others may want to persuade you to keep going, but the final choice can and MUST be your own if you can make choices, or the choice of the person you chose to decide FOR you if you can't.
My understanding is that when / if she clears the Senate floor vote she's a Justice and Trump doesn't have to sign something.
I'm not even quite clear that the President has the official power to withdraw a nomination once it's been made (although I can't imagine many circumstances where that would matter, maybe some Trump / Pence are incapacitated and President Pelosi wants to un-nominate and McConnell says nah?).
The president, or whom ever is filling the role, can withdraw a candidate. Otherwise they have a long overdue confirmation hearing for Garland to get to!
More specifically the confirmed nominee is not seated until POTUS seats them. The President ultimately makes the appointment, the Senate just approves them to be appointed.
I believe that Presidents could, in theory, queue up a confirmed backup Justice at the start of every session and just never seat them.
Mike Lee is a Senator from Utah and has tested positive for Covid-19.
The priority is not getting well, it's ramming through the Justice.
Vanity Fair contributing editor.
She should be quarantined and kept away from the rest of the Senate. She probably will not be.