RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a critical ACA case on the docket this fall. Amy Barrett is on record that she believes the ACA is unconstitutional. She would be the swing vote to make it 5-4 to strike it down. The ACA is extreme popular and it’s protection was key to the Ds win in the house in 2018. Ds need to make this about protecting the ACA.

Arguments in the ACA case start Nov. 10 -- is it likely a new SCOTUS justice would be confirmed by then? And if not, she wouldn't have a vote in that case, right?

Right now it looks like republicans will try to confirm before the election on Nov. 3. Certainly no guarantee they will get it done by then, but it’s enough of a possibility to make it a clear election issue.

Nah, it's happening during the lame duck. They're just going to try and run on th Court and Democratic "obstruction". But it's a double edged sword. If everyone knows that they ar doing it during the lame duck then it doesn't matter who wins the election. People can safely vote against Trump's incompetence and not have to worry about the seat.

So republicans will say it doesn’t matter to the ACA because their anti-ACA pick won’t get a chance to vote on this specific case? Ok, if the debate is over how soon their pick will take away preexisting conditions protections, I think that’s a debate democrats will love to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a critical ACA case on the docket this fall. Amy Barrett is on record that she believes the ACA is unconstitutional. She would be the swing vote to make it 5-4 to strike it down. The ACA is extreme popular and it’s protection was key to the Ds win in the house in 2018. Ds need to make this about protecting the ACA.

Arguments in the ACA case start Nov. 10 -- is it likely a new SCOTUS justice would be confirmed by then? And if not, she wouldn't have a vote in that case, right?

Right now it looks like republicans will try to confirm before the election on Nov. 3. Certainly no guarantee they will get it done by then, but it’s enough of a possibility to make it a clear election issue.

Nah, it's happening during the lame duck. They're just going to try and run on th Court and Democratic "obstruction". But it's a double edged sword. If everyone knows that they ar doing it during the lame duck then it doesn't matter who wins the election. People can safely vote against Trump's incompetence and not have to worry about the seat.

So republicans will say it doesn’t matter to the ACA because their anti-ACA pick won’t get a chance to vote on this specific case? Ok, if the debate is over how soon their pick will take away preexisting conditions protections, I think that’s a debate democrats will love to have.

RBGs death already killed it. The vote is now 4-4 which means the lower court ruling killing it stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama appointed a Catholic, and nobody complained. Objections to ACB are not anti-Catholic, but based on how she is expected to vote on Roe.

Right, but the personal attacks on her reflect anti-religious bigotry. Obama's nominees did not face these kinds of attacks and were approved by huge numbers in both parties.

Were they associated with splinter sects championing zealotry?
Also, Mitch doesn’t GAF about abortion. Amy is a shill for corporatists. It’s all about money money money.

Welcome to the American way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a critical ACA case on the docket this fall. Amy Barrett is on record that she believes the ACA is unconstitutional. She would be the swing vote to make it 5-4 to strike it down. The ACA is extreme popular and it’s protection was key to the Ds win in the house in 2018. Ds need to make this about protecting the ACA.

Arguments in the ACA case start Nov. 10 -- is it likely a new SCOTUS justice would be confirmed by then? And if not, she wouldn't have a vote in that case, right?

Right now it looks like republicans will try to confirm before the election on Nov. 3. Certainly no guarantee they will get it done by then, but it’s enough of a possibility to make it a clear election issue.

Nah, it's happening during the lame duck. They're just going to try and run on th Court and Democratic "obstruction". But it's a double edged sword. If everyone knows that they ar doing it during the lame duck then it doesn't matter who wins the election. People can safely vote against Trump's incompetence and not have to worry about the seat.

So republicans will say it doesn’t matter to the ACA because their anti-ACA pick won’t get a chance to vote on this specific case? Ok, if the debate is over how soon their pick will take away preexisting conditions protections, I think that’s a debate democrats will love to have.

RBGs death already killed it. The vote is now 4-4 which means the lower court ruling killing it stands.

One possible permutation is that Roberts will flip his vote in order to try and wrote the opinion.

I am not sure which would be the better outcome but we can assume that the ACA is walking dead right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a critical ACA case on the docket this fall. Amy Barrett is on record that she believes the ACA is unconstitutional. She would be the swing vote to make it 5-4 to strike it down. The ACA is extreme popular and it’s protection was key to the Ds win in the house in 2018. Ds need to make this about protecting the ACA.

Arguments in the ACA case start Nov. 10 -- is it likely a new SCOTUS justice would be confirmed by then? And if not, she wouldn't have a vote in that case, right?

Right now it looks like republicans will try to confirm before the election on Nov. 3. Certainly no guarantee they will get it done by then, but it’s enough of a possibility to make it a clear election issue.

Nah, it's happening during the lame duck. They're just going to try and run on th Court and Democratic "obstruction". But it's a double edged sword. If everyone knows that they ar doing it during the lame duck then it doesn't matter who wins the election. People can safely vote against Trump's incompetence and not have to worry about the seat.

So republicans will say it doesn’t matter to the ACA because their anti-ACA pick won’t get a chance to vote on this specific case? Ok, if the debate is over how soon their pick will take away preexisting conditions protections, I think that’s a debate democrats will love to have.

RBGs death already killed it. The vote is now 4-4 which means the lower court ruling killing it stands.

The 5th Circuit didn’t strike down the whole law. It remanded to the district court to analyze which ACA provisions should be struck down. So a 4-4 would just let the district court do that, and then that decision would be appealed.

[Anonymous]

Murkowski says she's out

[Anonymous]

Trump is a Houdini - he's proven that over and over. RGB's death has enabled him to resuscitate his campaign and likely win in November. I hate it, but I think we all better get prepared for it. I'm still making small dollar donations to DNC, Biden, various senate candidates and The Lincoln Project, but I think the dynamic has changed too much. Frustrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Murkowski says she's out

She's proven herself spineless before. I don't know that I trust her now. But maybe...she'll grow a backbone over the coming weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a critical ACA case on the docket this fall. Amy Barrett is on record that she believes the ACA is unconstitutional. She would be the swing vote to make it 5-4 to strike it down. The ACA is extreme popular and it’s protection was key to the Ds win in the house in 2018. Ds need to make this about protecting the ACA.

Arguments in the ACA case start Nov. 10 -- is it likely a new SCOTUS justice would be confirmed by then? And if not, she wouldn't have a vote in that case, right?

Right now it looks like republicans will try to confirm before the election on Nov. 3. Certainly no guarantee they will get it done by then, but it’s enough of a possibility to make it a clear election issue.

Nah, it's happening during the lame duck. They're just going to try and run on th Court and Democratic "obstruction". But it's a double edged sword. If everyone knows that they ar doing it during the lame duck then it doesn't matter who wins the election. People can safely vote against Trump's incompetence and not have to worry about the seat.

So republicans will say it doesn’t matter to the ACA because their anti-ACA pick won’t get a chance to vote on this specific case? Ok, if the debate is over how soon their pick will take away preexisting conditions protections, I think that’s a debate democrats will love to have.

RBGs death already killed it. The vote is now 4-4 which means the lower court ruling killing it stands.

The 5th Circuit didn’t strike down the whole law. It remanded to the district court to analyze which ACA provisions should be struck down. So a 4-4 would just let the district court do that, and then that decision would be appealed.

Not quite. The district court said the entire thing needed to be struck down because of the individual mandate. The 5th circuit said they need to do a more thorough.seversbility analysis first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see an atheist SCOTUS. Americans are oppressed by religious freaks of all denominations. We need pure intellectual thought untainted by dogma.

Agreed. Religion is a political football. We need a person who doesn't have a religion that the press or dcum will make an issue out of

How about a Muslim or a hindu

Biden’s 2nd pick will be a hindu, Sri Srinivasan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is a Houdini - he's proven that over and over. RGB's death has enabled him to resuscitate his campaign and likely win in November. I hate it, but I think we all better get prepared for it. I'm still making small dollar donations to DNC, Biden, various senate candidates and The Lincoln Project, but I think the dynamic has changed too much. Frustrated.

Trump is not Houdini. He is a populist, but not a very good one. If he wins, it will be because he is good enough at it. Still, I think the dynamic hasn't changes much at all. It's just energized both sides, but I don't see anyone changing their mind over this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a critical ACA case on the docket this fall. Amy Barrett is on record that she believes the ACA is unconstitutional. She would be the swing vote to make it 5-4 to strike it down. The ACA is extreme popular and it’s protection was key to the Ds win in the house in 2018. Ds need to make this about protecting the ACA.

Arguments in the ACA case start Nov. 10 -- is it likely a new SCOTUS justice would be confirmed by then? And if not, she wouldn't have a vote in that case, right?

Right now it looks like republicans will try to confirm before the election on Nov. 3. Certainly no guarantee they will get it done by then, but it’s enough of a possibility to make it a clear election issue.

Nah, it's happening during the lame duck. They're just going to try and run on th Court and Democratic "obstruction". But it's a double edged sword. If everyone knows that they ar doing it during the lame duck then it doesn't matter who wins the election. People can safely vote against Trump's incompetence and not have to worry about the seat.

So republicans will say it doesn’t matter to the ACA because their anti-ACA pick won’t get a chance to vote on this specific case? Ok, if the debate is over how soon their pick will take away preexisting conditions protections, I think that’s a debate democrats will love to have.

RBGs death already killed it. The vote is now 4-4 which means the lower court ruling killing it stands.

The 5th Circuit didn’t strike down the whole law. It remanded to the district court to analyze which ACA provisions should be struck down. So a 4-4 would just let the district court do that, and then that decision would be appealed.

Not quite. The district court said the entire thing needed to be struck down because of the individual mandate. The 5th circuit said they need to do a more thorough.seversbility analysis first.

And how is that different than from what I said? The point is, a 4-4 decision doesn’t kill the aca as the PP asserted. It just sets up another scotus case next fall. Whether Barrett would be the swing vote to strike it down is therefore very salient to this election regardless of whether the confirmation is before or after the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is a Houdini - he's proven that over and over. RGB's death has enabled him to resuscitate his campaign and likely win in November. I hate it, but I think we all better get prepared for it. I'm still making small dollar donations to DNC, Biden, various senate candidates and The Lincoln Project, but I think the dynamic has changed too much. Frustrated.

Trump is not Houdini. He is a populist, but not a very good one. If he wins, it will be because he is good enough at it. Still, I think the dynamic hasn't changes much at all. It's just energized both sides, but I don't see anyone changing their mind over this.

+1 and replacing RBG was on the ballot way before she died. I’m not sure it makes that much of a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the forced birthers on here wetting their pants because Roe v Wade is on the line, you know that the doctor Trump was having take out those women’s uteruses without their knowledge wasn’t even broad certified, right?

You aren’t pro-life. You’re just evil.

He doesn’t have to be a board-certified OB-GYN. If he’s a surgeon, that’s fine. I’m sorry but they don’t deserve tax-payer funded JH-style care. There is universal care in their own countries. They weren’t treated there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the forced birthers on here wetting their pants because Roe v Wade is on the line, you know that the doctor Trump was having take out those women’s uteruses without their knowledge wasn’t even broad certified, right?

You aren’t pro-life. You’re just evil.

He doesn’t have to be a board-certified OB-GYN. If he’s a surgeon, that’s fine. I’m sorry but they don’t deserve tax-payer funded JH-style care. There is universal care in their own countries. They weren’t treated there.

wow. thanks for showing your true colors.