Yup. They should basically take the chance to link Trump's nominees to his attempts to kill healthcare and kill Roe v Wade. And afaik she's on the record with statements about the ACA.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is going to be replaced by a person who pronounced the “g” in the word poignant while giving a nationally broadcast speech from the White House.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is going to be replaced by a person who pronounced the “g” in the word poignant while giving a nationally broadcast speech from the White House.
Well that's a fresh bit of violence I wasn't expecting.
The Democrats have been telling us this was the most important thing for like 20 years and now they're just going to roll the fuck over like it's nothing. We can't even get a guarantee that all Democrat senators are going to vote no.
The Democrats have been telling us this was the most important thing for like 20 years and now they're just going to roll the fuck over like it's nothing. We can't even get a guarantee that all Democrat senators are going to vote no.
Um...yes we have that. Even Manchin says he's a hard no because the process is so fucked.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+25
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I see the ACA being the stronger point here. Remember, in 2017 the Republicans got gung-ho about wanting to repeal it and their constituencies (notably elderly voters) starting showing up to Town Halls to say "hey uh, no, we want it, it turns out it's good and helps us."
The Republican response was to stop doing Town Halls by, what, June-ish of that year?
I see the ACA being the stronger point here. Remember, in 2017 the Republicans got gung-ho about wanting to repeal it and their constituencies (notably elderly voters) starting showing up to Town Halls to say "hey uh, no, we want it, it turns out it's good and helps us."
The Republican response was to stop doing Town Halls by, what, June-ish of that year?
ACA is the strongest point probably. But the polling supporting the Roe status quo is also overwhelming.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I see the ACA being the stronger point here. Remember, in 2017 the Republicans got gung-ho about wanting to repeal it and their constituencies (notably elderly voters) starting showing up to Town Halls to say "hey uh, no, we want it, it turns out it's good and helps us."
The Republican response was to stop doing Town Halls by, what, June-ish of that year?
ACA is the strongest point probably. But the polling supporting the Roe status quo is also overwhelming.
The difference is that the health care crowd is more in play. If you care about Roe it is very unlikely you were on the fence.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I see the ACA being the stronger point here. Remember, in 2017 the Republicans got gung-ho about wanting to repeal it and their constituencies (notably elderly voters) starting showing up to Town Halls to say "hey uh, no, we want it, it turns out it's good and helps us."
The Republican response was to stop doing Town Halls by, what, June-ish of that year?
ACA is the strongest point probably. But the polling supporting the Roe status quo is also overwhelming.
The difference is that the health care crowd is more in play. If you care about Roe it is very unlikely you were on the fence.
Lots of complacent suburban women. It's like 63% or something, so plenty of them vote for Republicans.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The Democrats have been telling us this was the most important thing for like 20 years and now they're just going to roll the fuck over like it's nothing. We can't even get a guarantee that all Democrat senators are going to vote no.
Um...yes we have that. Even Manchin says he's a hard no because the process is so fucked.
My statement on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett: pic.twitter.com/ejK0afp2TC
2016 8 months out. We are too close to an election to nominate a surpreme court justice.
2020, voting underway, rgb last wish to not appoint a new justice until after election. Gop, everything is fine, this is normal , we are voting on a new justice. Haha suck it libs.
2016 8 months out. We are too close to an election to nominate a surpreme court justice.
2020, voting underway, rgb last wish to not appoint a new justice until after election. Gop, everything is fine, this is normal , we are voting on a new justice. Haha suck it libs.
2016 8 months out. We are too close to an election to nominate a surpreme court justice.
2020, voting underway, rgb last wish to not appoint a new justice until after election. Gop, everything is fine, this is normal , we are voting on a new justice. Haha suck it libs.
.....
Fuck democracy
Democracy is not the problem here.
Dumbass voters are and it's by design for the electoral college. People vote against themselves, against things that would help them, because of brown people. I would say the electoral college and the way we do democracy are a problem in this country. The minority are starting to rule and by their votes we've set this country back a century. It's sickening.
The Democrats have been telling us this was the most important thing for like 20 years and now they're just going to roll the fuck over like it's nothing. We can't even get a guarantee that all Democrat senators are going to vote no.
What action are they not taking that they should take?
I'm also terrified and angry but I'm legitimately not certain there is a specific action for them to do except to say that they are uniformly against this. They can't shout 53 into being smaller than 47.
It's actually difficult to figure out exactly what her specific religious beliefs are, because People of Praise operates as a collection of separate groups, and they're secretive enough that we can't say for certain what her beliefs are. We can say that in general, married women in those groups are required to make an explicit pact to be subservient to their husband, and that as the head of the family he gets ultimate say on anything she does. And we can point to people who have left the group who pretty much all agree it operates like a cult. ("Our members can leave whenever they want!" says the People of Praise and all also every cult ever.) And we can point out that the group is basically Catholicism by way of Pentacostalism, which is to say completely fucking wackadoo.
But since we don't know what her specific group is like, all we can do is make suppositions, which are going to sound a lot to the general public like attacking Christianity in general.
For those who are not Catholic or Catholic-adjacent, as a general rule, if someone is described as belonging to a "Catholic sect" and the following sentence does not contain the descriptors Benedictine, Dominican, Franciscan, or Jesuit, you can safely assume that they're bugfuck heretics.
The GOP's dedication to the destruction of democracy, that's the big problem. Information warfare, and the intentional creation of dumbass voters, is a facet of that central issue. Potentially a fixable facet, but only if the party in power is trying to fix it, instead of making it worse.
I want to see Manchin etc talking about inauguration, not election, and I'd like to see the hypocrisy highlighted just a little more. As in, the hypocrisy isn't just happening, but it's happening as a central part of an attempt to break healthcare (Roe, steal election, etc.) and not just a side note. Leahy's statement doesn't quite get there. Not mentioning the hypocrisy until the 4th paragraph is not what I'm looking for, though it's better than nothing.
2016 8 months out. We are too close to an election to nominate a surpreme court justice.
2020, voting underway, rgb last wish to not appoint a new justice until after election. Gop, everything is fine, this is normal , we are voting on a new justice. Haha suck it libs.
.....
Fuck democracy
Democracy isn't the problem. Voters letting them get away with that shit in 2016 was the problem. It was bullshit. There should have been massive protests.
If anyone expected Mitch McConnell to stand on principle, they're a rube. There are no principles in modern Republican politics McConnell is not willing to sacrifice for power.
In sum, Barrett writes the right to vote is not an “individual right” of the same kind that Scalia declared the right to weapons to be in Heller; it’s a “civic right.” Therefore, she concludes the right to vote is susceptible to have whole classes of people excluded from it...
southpaw
In particular, ACB believes that felons, including nonviolent felons, can be excluded as a class from the right to vote forever, whereas the government must make an individualized showing of dangerousness to justify restricting a felon’s access to weapons.
Take the right to vote from felons? Sure thing.
Taking guns from felons? Woah, there.
As the "originalists" and "textualists" who...keep making up new terms for shit as a way to restrict rights despite none of that appearing in the constitution.
Call me cynical, but I wouldn't expect the SC to rule barring felons from voting unconstitutional even if Obama had gotten Garland and a RBG replacement.
It's worse, because you can use the logic to extend far beyond "just" felons", and what she proposes would involve lower scrutiny than now. It also of course means she'd rule against any suit on changing the current standard.
Call me cynical, but I wouldn't expect the SC to rule barring felons from voting unconstitutional even if Obama had gotten Garland and a RBG replacement.
It's worse, because you can use the logic to extend far beyond "just" felons", and what she proposes would involve lower scrutiny than now. It also of course means she'd rule against any suit on changing the current standard.
Doesn't even need to be "far beyond".
At the slightest hint of any violence in any sort of protests or reaction to him inevitably trying to dismiss the election, they'll just point to it as evidence that Democrats and "antifa" hate the country and to avoid them trying to "rig" future elections, they need to lose the right to vote. Just like with all the other protests this year, his jackboot supremacist fans will ensure there is violence, and just like for the past year, to Trump supporters, it won't even matter who started it.
Everyone's going on about ACA and Roe; ya'll aren't thinking like a dictator who has disposed of any need to pretend to care about "rights".
It's insane that it appears Democrats are going to roll over on this lady's cult membership, because they're terrified of appearing to criticize her religion. "no religious test" goes both ways you dipshits. If she's being presented as someone with godly values and conviction, there isn't a test; there's just questioning what she has already put front and center. Also, "no religious test" doesn't mean it doesn't matter what beliefs a person holds, it means that you can't bar them from office for their religion. But you can damn well bar them from office if they believe insane shit that expressly contradicts constitutional values.
"Sir, this person believes that all children should have their eyes sewn shut. It's in their scripture." "No, no, we can't question their religion, that is off limits, and we will just have to assume that they will choose to do the right thing for the country!" :rotate:
What do the votes look like? Doesn't a straight party-line vote mean she gets in, nothing we can do about it (but put on a show for the cameras, I guess) unless some Rs break ranks (yeah right)?
Commander Zoom on
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
There's no rolling over. It's just tbat Senate has the power here
Really, the only option here for people that aren't aboard the authoritarian fuckery that the GOP is up. Is to show the fuck up and vote democratic overwhelmingly to the point that the democrats can just easily pack the court and there isn't a fucking thing the GOP could do about it.
If the GOP is hell bent on ramming a fucking theocrat that thinks shitty male pigs need to be worship, there isn't anything the democrats can really do to stop it legally. The GOP has a majority in the Senate and the Senate confirms on simple majority, which is a rule that was decided by simple majority.
I have to say it's pretty irritating and stupid that people have the the gall to claim the democrats are rolling over here. They aren't. The problem is our shit weasel corporate media won't report properly. That the GOP is full of craven shit weasels. Also that we had a ton of geese that valued fucking perfection over a better outcome that was imperfect. The problem with making perfect the enemy of better and purity testing, is that it lands us in shit situations like this. Before 2014 people had doubts that RGB was long for the world and in late 2016 it became pretty clear the GOP would fill any court seat open with the most shit hack they could stomach. People were told the courts were on the line in 2016, but people didn't listen. Elections have consequences.
It's hardly constructive to vent and rail about how the democrats aren't stopping a process that they have no legal authority to stop. That they have no leverage to stop. Again only solution to this problem now is to show up and vote overwhelmingly democratic, so that they can stack the courts and tell the GOP to get fucked. Probably also get whatever US territories we have that want to be states, brought in as states. Also go kill the gooseshit bill that limited the House to 435 seats, I'd have to check but I want to say expanded the house probably results in the GOP having a harder time winning the presidency. Also blow up all the other shit the GOP has gotten legalized, that was done to rig the system.
That not to say people shouldn't make a ton of noise about a shit thing the GOP is doing, they should. Just again, not constructive to be like "well fuck democrats for not coming up with some magically solution to stop the GOP, when they have no legal authority or leverage to do so.
Only other hope is that a chunk of the GOP electorate hears enough about her before confirmation, that they really sour on the idea of her being on the court. Though not holding my breath her because you'd need a large chunk of it to really sour on the idea and sour on it quickly. By large, I mean to the point where it really does threaten GOP Senators that thought they would have an easy re-election. Probably would have be 4 that aren't Collins, Tillis, Gardner, McSally, & Graham, I'd say the races are close enough that if this scenario happens, well they'll conclude they are fucked and it hardly matters how they vote. So yeah, prospects really on good for that one.
In sum, Barrett writes the right to vote is not an “individual right” of the same kind that Scalia declared the right to weapons to be in Heller; it’s a “civic right.” Therefore, she concludes the right to vote is susceptible to have whole classes of people excluded from it...
southpaw
In particular, ACB believes that felons, including nonviolent felons, can be excluded as a class from the right to vote forever, whereas the government must make an individualized showing of dangerousness to justify restricting a felon’s access to weapons.
Take the right to vote from felons? Sure thing.
Taking guns from felons? Woah, there.
see I don't get the republica myopia here
they're betting that scotus doesn't lose legitimacy over this and doesn't usher in mass change as a result. I wouldn't take that bet
+2
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
In sum, Barrett writes the right to vote is not an “individual right” of the same kind that Scalia declared the right to weapons to be in Heller; it’s a “civic right.” Therefore, she concludes the right to vote is susceptible to have whole classes of people excluded from it...
southpaw
In particular, ACB believes that felons, including nonviolent felons, can be excluded as a class from the right to vote forever, whereas the government must make an individualized showing of dangerousness to justify restricting a felon’s access to weapons.
Take the right to vote from felons? Sure thing.
Taking guns from felons? Woah, there.
see I don't get the republica myopia here
they're betting that scotus doesn't lose legitimacy over this and doesn't usher in mass change as a result. I wouldn't take that bet
They're betting that they'll have enough control over the political process that "legitimacy" no longer matters, because they'll be able to disempower anyone capable of credibly threatening them.
What do the votes look like? Doesn't a straight party-line vote mean she gets in, nothing we can do about it (but put on a show for the cameras, I guess) unless some Rs break ranks (yeah right)?
Collins and Murkowsky are No votes supposedly. Romney is a Yes on some limp argument about returning to the standard instead of keeping the McConnell way. Convenient.
We needed 4, got two. This is over, the vote will happen in the 2nd week of October if not earlier. There is no thing we can do to stop it.
+7
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited September 2020
I don't care how emphatically or repeatedly Collins says she's a no vote. I won't believe it until she votes no.
I don't care how emphatically or repeatedly Collins says she's a no vote. I won't believe it until she votes no.
That being said, it's over without her, for sure.
She'll vote no because it doesn't matter, since we needed four defections. If Romney really needed to vote no, he'd be allowed to, as well, but it's probably slightly better for optics if Pence doesn't have to step in.
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.
What do the votes look like? Doesn't a straight party-line vote mean she gets in, nothing we can do about it (but put on a show for the cameras, I guess) unless some Rs break ranks (yeah right)?
Collins and Murkowsky are No votes supposedly. Romney is a Yes on some limp argument about returning to the standard instead of keeping the McConnell way. Convenient.
We needed 4, got two. This is over, the vote will happen in the 2nd week of October if not earlier. There is no thing we can do to stop it.
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.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
Posts
We've already seen Biden doing this thankfully.
Well that's a fresh bit of violence I wasn't expecting.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Um...yes we have that. Even Manchin says he's a hard no because the process is so fucked.
The Republican response was to stop doing Town Halls by, what, June-ish of that year?
ACA is the strongest point probably. But the polling supporting the Roe status quo is also overwhelming.
The difference is that the health care crowd is more in play. If you care about Roe it is very unlikely you were on the fence.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Lots of complacent suburban women. It's like 63% or something, so plenty of them vote for Republicans.
My statement on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett: pic.twitter.com/ejK0afp2TC
2016 8 months out. We are too close to an election to nominate a surpreme court justice.
2020, voting underway, rgb last wish to not appoint a new justice until after election. Gop, everything is fine, this is normal , we are voting on a new justice. Haha suck it libs.
.....
Fuck democracy
Democracy is not the problem here.
Dumbass voters are and it's by design for the electoral college. People vote against themselves, against things that would help them, because of brown people. I would say the electoral college and the way we do democracy are a problem in this country. The minority are starting to rule and by their votes we've set this country back a century. It's sickening.
What action are they not taking that they should take?
I'm also terrified and angry but I'm legitimately not certain there is a specific action for them to do except to say that they are uniformly against this. They can't shout 53 into being smaller than 47.
For those who are not Catholic or Catholic-adjacent, as a general rule, if someone is described as belonging to a "Catholic sect" and the following sentence does not contain the descriptors Benedictine, Dominican, Franciscan, or Jesuit, you can safely assume that they're bugfuck heretics.
The GOP's dedication to the destruction of democracy, that's the big problem. Information warfare, and the intentional creation of dumbass voters, is a facet of that central issue. Potentially a fixable facet, but only if the party in power is trying to fix it, instead of making it worse.
I want to see Manchin etc talking about inauguration, not election, and I'd like to see the hypocrisy highlighted just a little more. As in, the hypocrisy isn't just happening, but it's happening as a central part of an attempt to break healthcare (Roe, steal election, etc.) and not just a side note. Leahy's statement doesn't quite get there. Not mentioning the hypocrisy until the 4th paragraph is not what I'm looking for, though it's better than nothing.
Stack. The. Fucking. Court.
Democracy isn't the problem. Voters letting them get away with that shit in 2016 was the problem. It was bullshit. There should have been massive protests.
If anyone expected Mitch McConnell to stand on principle, they're a rube. There are no principles in modern Republican politics McConnell is not willing to sacrifice for power.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Taking guns from felons? Woah, there.
It's worse, because you can use the logic to extend far beyond "just" felons", and what she proposes would involve lower scrutiny than now. It also of course means she'd rule against any suit on changing the current standard.
or being a Democrat
Ok. You're cynical.
Doesn't even need to be "far beyond".
At the slightest hint of any violence in any sort of protests or reaction to him inevitably trying to dismiss the election, they'll just point to it as evidence that Democrats and "antifa" hate the country and to avoid them trying to "rig" future elections, they need to lose the right to vote. Just like with all the other protests this year, his jackboot supremacist fans will ensure there is violence, and just like for the past year, to Trump supporters, it won't even matter who started it.
Everyone's going on about ACA and Roe; ya'll aren't thinking like a dictator who has disposed of any need to pretend to care about "rights".
It's insane that it appears Democrats are going to roll over on this lady's cult membership, because they're terrified of appearing to criticize her religion. "no religious test" goes both ways you dipshits. If she's being presented as someone with godly values and conviction, there isn't a test; there's just questioning what she has already put front and center. Also, "no religious test" doesn't mean it doesn't matter what beliefs a person holds, it means that you can't bar them from office for their religion. But you can damn well bar them from office if they believe insane shit that expressly contradicts constitutional values.
"Sir, this person believes that all children should have their eyes sewn shut. It's in their scripture." "No, no, we can't question their religion, that is off limits, and we will just have to assume that they will choose to do the right thing for the country!" :rotate:
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
If the GOP is hell bent on ramming a fucking theocrat that thinks shitty male pigs need to be worship, there isn't anything the democrats can really do to stop it legally. The GOP has a majority in the Senate and the Senate confirms on simple majority, which is a rule that was decided by simple majority.
I have to say it's pretty irritating and stupid that people have the the gall to claim the democrats are rolling over here. They aren't. The problem is our shit weasel corporate media won't report properly. That the GOP is full of craven shit weasels. Also that we had a ton of geese that valued fucking perfection over a better outcome that was imperfect. The problem with making perfect the enemy of better and purity testing, is that it lands us in shit situations like this. Before 2014 people had doubts that RGB was long for the world and in late 2016 it became pretty clear the GOP would fill any court seat open with the most shit hack they could stomach. People were told the courts were on the line in 2016, but people didn't listen. Elections have consequences.
It's hardly constructive to vent and rail about how the democrats aren't stopping a process that they have no legal authority to stop. That they have no leverage to stop. Again only solution to this problem now is to show up and vote overwhelmingly democratic, so that they can stack the courts and tell the GOP to get fucked. Probably also get whatever US territories we have that want to be states, brought in as states. Also go kill the gooseshit bill that limited the House to 435 seats, I'd have to check but I want to say expanded the house probably results in the GOP having a harder time winning the presidency. Also blow up all the other shit the GOP has gotten legalized, that was done to rig the system.
That not to say people shouldn't make a ton of noise about a shit thing the GOP is doing, they should. Just again, not constructive to be like "well fuck democrats for not coming up with some magically solution to stop the GOP, when they have no legal authority or leverage to do so.
Only other hope is that a chunk of the GOP electorate hears enough about her before confirmation, that they really sour on the idea of her being on the court. Though not holding my breath her because you'd need a large chunk of it to really sour on the idea and sour on it quickly. By large, I mean to the point where it really does threaten GOP Senators that thought they would have an easy re-election. Probably would have be 4 that aren't Collins, Tillis, Gardner, McSally, & Graham, I'd say the races are close enough that if this scenario happens, well they'll conclude they are fucked and it hardly matters how they vote. So yeah, prospects really on good for that one.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
see I don't get the republica myopia here
they're betting that scotus doesn't lose legitimacy over this and doesn't usher in mass change as a result. I wouldn't take that bet
They're betting that they'll have enough control over the political process that "legitimacy" no longer matters, because they'll be able to disempower anyone capable of credibly threatening them.
Collins and Murkowsky are No votes supposedly. Romney is a Yes on some limp argument about returning to the standard instead of keeping the McConnell way. Convenient.
We needed 4, got two. This is over, the vote will happen in the 2nd week of October if not earlier. There is no thing we can do to stop it.
That being said, it's over without her, for sure.
If she can safely vote no she will. A yes vote would destroy any slim chance she has of winning re-election.
That said, if she loses and the vote happens after the election she is probably a yes.
She'll vote no because it doesn't matter, since we needed four defections. If Romney really needed to vote no, he'd be allowed to, as well, but it's probably slightly better for optics if Pence doesn't have to step in.
Murkowsky’s a yes, in all likelihood.