SCOTUS

[MDlaxfan76]

Petey, it's not really a surprise that Mitt came down where he did.

Here's the bottom line, raw power rules.

Promises, norms and precedents don't actually matter unless the voters say so.

It's ugly and definitely contrary to the intent of the Founders, but unless the voters decide otherwise, the system is going to be far more nakedly about the raw exercise of power going forward.

so...expect the Dems, if/when they win the Senate and WH, to dramatically exercise their power to address all of the aspects of the system which disadvantage their interests politically.

There are no norms and precedents that will be sacrosanct.
Again, unless the voters decide otherwise.

Some can be done simply with majority votes, some may require Constitutional Amendments. But most can be done legislatively, with various rules that enfranchise American citizens who do not currently have representative and electoral college rights, eg Puerto Rico, DC, etc, or have proportionately less than their populations, actions which make voting nationwide far easier to do (VRA), ETC. Choice will be legislated nationally, health care nationally.

That's what Republicans have long stewed about, that the SCOTUS has 'legislated' instead of Congress...they're going to get what they asked for.

So, do understand that the Trumpist GOP have understood this going in. They knew the tide was going against them on all sorts of issues given where younger people are and the changing demography of America, and they're desperate to hold onto whatever power they can...there's truly nothing off the table.

Can't you at least say Mitt is an honorable guy and you have no doubt he is doing an honorable thing? Is he now part of the fetid underworld of raw political power? Just yesterday he was 'noble'.

Here's my call on Mitt. He's a good guy. Full stop. One of the rarer ones. I've changed my opinion on the guy a few times. But I think he shows he's a good to great family man which always tells me a ton about any person.

I think Trump's character irritates him to no end, but he was game to go work for the guy, so perhaps Mitt does have the touch of ego to him that we don't often see.

Mitt ultimately is a patriot and a conservative, and SCOTUS is the bulwark between America staying great versus America going down a sewer pipe (which liberal justices would no doubt enable). The guy made the right call.

I do think Mitt is an "honorable guy" and I admire him on all sorts of dimensions.

But I wouldn't call this decision "noble", much less wise. I think he found a logical "precedent" rationale to enable a lifetime appointment for a conservative judge to SCOTUS, a silver lining in the disgusting Trump mess. He had not previously established a position that would make him, like so many others, a bald-faced liar, so he can hold his head up as 'truthful' as he made this decision.

Where he lost me re "noble", and certainly not wise, was the notion that the Garland decision, which he was not part of, was justified by the fact that a different party was in control when the nomination was made, including the power to deny even a hearing. If that's the case, then he's saying that the Senate has no obligation to hold judicial hearings, including for SCOTUS, at any time. Has nothing to do with anything other than the power to deny. Clearly not the intent of the Founders and the Constitution, but consistent with the raw exercise of power that is possible under this logic.

But ok, then what he's really saying is that raw power is all.
Which would be an honest position. But very damaging.

I'd have preferred him to say that he thinks the Garland decision was ill-founded, but his decision is solely about whether the current situation should allow a President and Senate to place a Justice on the court when they have the votes to do so.

[MDlaxfan76]

so...expect the Dems, if/when they win the Senate and WH, to dramatically exercise their power to address all of the aspects of the system which disadvantage their interests politically.

There are no norms and precedents that will be sacrosanct.

This is the most unfortunate consequence of Trump's presidency and the GOP's unflinching support thereof: it's given Democrats a playbook for how to act when they're in full control.

Yup, no holds barred.

[MDlaxfan76]

So sure, she’s probably up in heaven looking for Scalia...

Yeah, that's cute, but she should be looking a little farther south to find THAT guy...speaking of being condescending to attorneys before the SCOTUS...

<<<sarcasm font on and turned up>>>

..

Nothing cute about sanctioning the death of that many fetuses.

Right. Nothing cute either about Republicans watching silently as the expanding Trump-fueled pandemic has led directly to thousands upon thousands of American deaths. The “Pro Life Party” my arse...

..

Whattaboutism much?

Stay on topic. We were talking about Notorious here, Dis.

Besides. 200K deaths is chump change.

There were 623,000 abortions LAST YEAR ALONE. Peep the stats my yellow friend:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ted_States

Did you really mean that 200k deaths is "chump change"???

Even if we were to accept that abortions = "deaths", surely 200K deaths headed to 300k, worst death rate and worst economic impact in developed world, ain't "chump change", right?

Or are you so 'all in' with the Trump CULT that you actually think it's "virtually nobody"???

The point that was made is that a large portion of the GOP has claimed that it is the "Pro Life" party yet there are those in the Trump GOP who think older people or those who have underlying conditions or just unlucky people are worthless and not to be considered "life" worth caring for.

And now we have Der Leader talking about DNA...and people cheer...

There are also lots of us on the right side who desperately care about those older people and people with underlying conditions. It's why so many of us are ticked off by "just a few thousand" elderly people sentenced to death in assisted living homes by Cuomo. Your made-up boogeyman of the cold-hearted republican doesnt work here.

There would be 30 million+ (18+) adults in the US without the abortions that happened from 1970 - 2002. Millions and millions of more children that were aborted from 2003-now.

Imagine the positive nationwide impact of 30M+ more poeple- workers, consumers, brains, entrepreneurs. That's a lot of tax dollars and innovation thrown away by the .gov by legalizing abortions. At the very least, imagine if you had 40% of those 30M aborted adults still around and voting. The Dems might have won PA, MI, WI or FL and not have gotten Trump to begin with.

Unintended consequences of abortion.

I get it. You think the "right side" is against Choice.
You see a woman deciding not to carry a fetus to term, murder.

I'm sure that view is deeply heartfelt and I don't quibble with your view as such.

I do disagree about that interpretation but what you may not understand is that I'd prefer to see fewer abortions as well. However, I'd like to see that through better birth control and health education than through controlling women's choices. I prefer empowering women. But it's no accident that there's so much overlap between those who claim to be "Pro-Life" who are vehemently opposed to contraceptives and sex education. Get back in that kitchen, wench.

But I will quibble with the notion that we'd be far better off had those women who didn't want a child been forced to have that child. Nope, that's a horrible way to increase the productive population in the United States, with far more female poverty, children living in poverty.

Now, on trying to suggest that nursing home deaths were uniquely due to political party, that's just ridiculous. Nursing home deaths have been a large proportion across states, regardless of party in control. It would be fair to say that there were more such deaths in the states hit the earliest, as PPE supplies were so scarce and the understanding of the virus was so nascent, but that didn't have a darn thing to do with political party.

You want to actually be 'pro-life'?
Wear a darn mask, stay away from crowds, and encourage everyone else to do the same.

[wgdsr]

8

As we go past 200k, headed to 300k, worst in the developed world both in death rates and economic impact.

Getting tired of all this winning?

just to interject so we're on course and with respect to factual correctness, we are not worst in the developed world for economic impact. far from it. unless you're talking about gross? as we're easily the largest economy, that would be a given in any event.

by death rates, i'll assume you mean in the last week.

it's 2020, so i wouldn't want to see falsehoods propogated.

hopefully, we don't make it to 300k.

carry on.

Feel free to clarify where we stand today relative to the rest of the developed world on either of these dimensions. Yes, the larger countries, with well developed, wealthy economies and health systems. And yes, I'm including our current trajectory in that assessment, not just the past.

I do agree with you that we can find a couple of smaller examples in which we can say their metric remains somewhat worse than ours, but not their trajectory.

At a minimum, we're in the "worst cohort" of all such countries.

But I take your point.

well, we're not (yet) in the worst cohort for economic impact. a lot of that is europe? and we're to date better off than many of those countries, even-ish with many, and really only "trail" a minority. depending on what kind of metrics you want to use, much of what has held stuff up everywhere is how much gov't stim (borrowing) has been utilized.

for death rates... the far east certainly has much better covid numbers than the rest of the developed world (if we're counting some of them). their measures have been documented. take them for what you will.

@ 21% of the global deaths and less than 5% of population, we're in a worst cohort there fo sho. of the "larger" countries in the "developed" world, it's not a large group.

[Peter Brown]

so...expect the Dems, if/when they win the Senate and WH, to dramatically exercise their power to address all of the aspects of the system which disadvantage their interests politically.

There are no norms and precedents that will be sacrosanct.

This is the most unfortunate consequence of Trump's presidency and the GOP's unflinching support thereof: it's given Democrats a playbook for how to act when they're in full control.

Democrats are so gentle and kind. Notwithstanding their nightly rioting and looting all over America for the past few months, they were so delicate and pleasant in their trashing of Kavanaugh in front of his kids!

And their use of the nuclear option by Harry Reid, that benevolent old uncle of ours.

And Ted Kennedy, woman killer lionized by Democrats, lying about Judge Bork.

I could go on for hours. The only hacks in our system are Democratic birdbrains like Hirono and Blumenthal. Vote out every Democratic politician before they ruin your state for decades.

[Bart]

I could go on for hours. The only hacks in our system are Democratic birdbrains like Hirono and Blumenthal. Vote out every Democratic politician before they ruin your state for decades.

You already have.................

[6ftstick]

I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

The difference was a democrat in the white house and a republican senate.

He never would have been confirmed. Just another democrat circus

[6ftstick]

I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

Botom line

Democrats couldn't get legislation on abortion.

They packed the supreme court.

First the court found a right to privacy somewhere in the constitutional ether.

Then they found a right to an abortion in that privacy vapor.

They know the threads holding their abortion religion together are very thin.

So they've attempted to destroy every conservative judge nominated to the supreme court.

65 million stopped hearts and counting. And you all want more without actually writing legislation.

Don't remember when exactly we traded the ermine robes of a monarch for the black robes of a supreme court judge.

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

[a fan]

The difference was a democrat in the white house and a republican senate.

He never would have been confirmed. Just another democrat circus

So what you're saying here is, you think it's perfectly fine that we don't get a SCOTUS appointment so long as the Senate and the White House are from two different parties?

And what happens if we get that for two or three terms in a row?

This is why our country is failing, 6ft. What's more? You know it.

All we have to do is find common ground, and the extreme left and extreme right go away...and we craft the middle path.

Just as our Founders planned it.

[6ftstick]

The difference was a democrat in the white house and a republican senate.

He never would have been confirmed. Just another democrat circus

So what you're saying here is, you think it's perfectly fine that we don't get a SCOTUS appointment so long as the Senate and the White House are from two different parties?

And what happens if we get that for two or three terms in a row?

This is why our country is failing, 6ft. What's more? You know it.

All we have to do is find common ground, and the extreme left and extreme right go away...and we craft the middle path.

Just as our Founders planned it.

Oh please read my whole post.

The country is failing because bureaucrats work around the constitution.

[Peter Brown]

I realize the resident lefties are in their typical emotionally unstable selves over this issue, so it might surprise you that there is a sizable contingent of conservatives who do not trust this pick.

Amy voted for the Illinois lockdown when it reached her court. Many view this suspiciously.

You got that going for you.

[ggait]

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

I agree. But be careful what you wish for.

Like RBG, I think Roe v. Wade was bad law,** and even worse public policy. RvW has been a political albatross for the Dems for 50 years and a boon to the GOP -- enabling them to talk the pro life talk without having to walk the walk.

Worst thing for the GOP would be for RvW to be over-turned. The GOP and their realpolitik justices know better than to go there. Because (with strong majorities in favor of legal abortion) the blow back would be unbearable. TBD if future justice Barrett is smart enough to continue the current course -- leave RvW nominally on the books as "precedent", but practically over-rule it with incremental death by a thousand cuts as allowed by Casey v. PP.

IMO, would have been better to just let the politics play out. Abortion (and guns) would of course still be available across the country, but to differing degrees. Utah -- few abortions; more guns. CA -- more abortions; fewer guns.

Would have been soooooo much easier and productive for pro choice advocates to organize and raise money to help women in the Utahs get the contraception and abortion services that are not easily available locally. George Soros could pay for that out of his couch cushion change. And the GOP would actually have to own the consequences of their stated agenda.

**Heller v. DC is equally bad law. An activist judge making stuff up and over-reaching in order to reach the desired policy outcome. EXACTLY the same thing as Roe v. wade. EXACTLY. Both have to be wrong or right -- it can't be one and one.

P.S. In the future, the GOP will increasingly exercise its shrinking power through activist judging. They increasingly have to cling to those pieces of our system that allow a motivated minority to defeat the growing majority -- vote suppression, gerrymandering, the Electoral College (at least until TX goes blue), federal courts, and rurally over-weighted the U.S. Senate (KS gets two; CA gets two). The Senate/SCOTUS alliance is a cornerstone.

[kramerica.inc]

So sure, she’s probably up in heaven looking for Scalia...

Yeah, that's cute, but she should be looking a little farther south to find THAT guy...speaking of being condescending to attorneys before the SCOTUS...

<<<sarcasm font on and turned up>>>

..

Nothing cute about sanctioning the death of that many fetuses.

Right. Nothing cute either about Republicans watching silently as the expanding Trump-fueled pandemic has led directly to thousands upon thousands of American deaths. The “Pro Life Party” my arse...

..

Whattaboutism much?

Stay on topic. We were talking about Notorious here, Dis.

Besides. 200K deaths is chump change.

There were 623,000 abortions LAST YEAR ALONE. Peep the stats my yellow friend:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ted_States

Did you really mean that 200k deaths is "chump change"???

Even if we were to accept that abortions = "deaths", surely 200K deaths headed to 300k, worst death rate and worst economic impact in developed world, ain't "chump change", right?

Or are you so 'all in' with the Trump CULT that you actually think it's "virtually nobody"???

The point that was made is that a large portion of the GOP has claimed that it is the "Pro Life" party yet there are those in the Trump GOP who think older people or those who have underlying conditions or just unlucky people are worthless and not to be considered "life" worth caring for.

And now we have Der Leader talking about DNA...and people cheer...

There are also lots of us on the right side who desperately care about those older people and people with underlying conditions. It's why so many of us are ticked off by "just a few thousand" elderly people sentenced to death in assisted living homes by Cuomo. Your made-up boogeyman of the cold-hearted republican doesnt work here.

There would be 30 million+ (18+) adults in the US without the abortions that happened from 1970 - 2002. Millions and millions of more children that were aborted from 2003-now.

Imagine the positive nationwide impact of 30M+ more poeple- workers, consumers, brains, entrepreneurs. That's a lot of tax dollars and innovation thrown away by the .gov by legalizing abortions. At the very least, imagine if you had 40% of those 30M aborted adults still around and voting. The Dems might have won PA, MI, WI or FL and not have gotten Trump to begin with.

Unintended consequences of abortion.

I get it. You think the "right side" is against Choice.
You see a woman deciding not to carry a fetus to term, murder.

I'm sure that view is deeply heartfelt and I don't quibble with your view as such.

I do disagree about that interpretation but what you may not understand is that I'd prefer to see fewer abortions as well. However, I'd like to see that through better birth control and health education than through controlling women's choices. I prefer empowering women. But it's no accident that there's so much overlap between those who claim to be "Pro-Life" who are vehemently opposed to contraceptives and sex education. Get back in that kitchen, wench.

But I will quibble with the notion that we'd be far better off had those women who didn't want a child been forced to have that child. Nope, that's a horrible way to increase the productive population in the United States, with far more female poverty, children living in poverty.

Now, on trying to suggest that nursing home deaths were uniquely due to political party, that's just ridiculous. Nursing home deaths have been a large proportion across states, regardless of party in control. It would be fair to say that there were more such deaths in the states hit the earliest, as PPE supplies were so scarce and the understanding of the virus was so nascent, but that didn't have a darn thing to do with political party.

You want to actually be 'pro-life'?
Wear a darn mask, stay away from crowds, and encourage everyone else to do the same.

The good news is people don't fit into boxes like people always think. I do personally think the "right side" is carrying a baby to term. I am also not going to judge those who have abortions. Murderer? That's between them and their maker. And who knows, perhaps I'm a "murderer" in His eyes for being pro contraception?

The same way you respect my deep held belief, I understand and respect that there are incredible circumstances where rape, incest and health of the mother are legitimate concerns and burdens for the mother. I do think that is more the outlier than the norm for most abortions and used as a straw man for the general discussion. I know I wont be changing their/your minds either.

Perhaps because I'm generally hopeful, I just don't see something transient and defeatable like poverty as a reason for abortion. But that's just me. I'm also pro-social safety-net to help those in poverty that need it.

And yes I do wear a mask, avoid large crowds and encourage my immediate family to do the same. But I don't expect others to wear them.

SO I guess you CAN be anti-abortion, pro-woman, pro-contraception, pro-personal freedom, and pro-mask.

[runrussellrun]

so...expect the Dems, if/when they win the Senate and WH, to dramatically exercise their power to address all of the aspects of the system which disadvantage their interests politically.

There are no norms and precedents that will be sacrosanct.

This is the most unfortunate consequence of Trump's presidency and the GOP's unflinching support thereof: it's given Democrats a playbook for how to act when they're in full control.

Yup, no holds barred.

who IS shocked that these comments resemble people with zero principles.

Unless, you are telling us that ALL appointed judges are political and not "blind".

huh..................

[seacoaster]

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

I agree. But be careful what you wish for.

Like RBG, I think Roe v. Wade was bad law,** and even worse public policy. RvW has been a political albatross for the Dems for 50 years and a boon to the GOP -- enabling them to talk the pro life talk without having to walk the walk.

Worst thing for the GOP would be for RvW to be over-turned. The GOP and their realpolitik justices know better than to go there. Because (with strong majorities in favor of legal abortion) the blow back would be unbearable. TBD if future justice Barrett is smart enough to continue the current course -- leave RvW nominally on the books as "precedent", but practically over-rule it with incremental death by a thousand cuts as allowed by Casey v. PP.

IMO, would have been better to just let the politics play out. Abortion (and guns) would of course still be available across the country, but to differing degrees. Utah -- few abortions; more guns. CA -- more abortions; fewer guns.

Would have been soooooo much easier and productive for pro choice advocates to organize and raise money to help women in the Utahs get the contraception and abortion services that are not easily available locally. George Soros could pay for that out of his couch cushion change. And the GOP would actually have to own the consequences of their stated agenda.

**Heller v. DC is equally bad law. An activist judge making stuff up and over-reaching in order to reach the desired policy outcome. EXACTLY the same thing as Roe v. wade. EXACTLY. Both have to be wrong or right -- it can't be one and one.

P.S. In the future, the GOP will increasingly exercise its shrinking power through activist judging. They increasingly have to cling to those pieces of our system that allow a motivated minority to defeat the growing majority -- vote suppression, gerrymandering, the Electoral College (at least until TX goes blue), federal courts, and rurally over-weighted the U.S. Senate (KS gets two; CA gets two). The Senate/SCOTUS alliance is a cornerstone.

+1. Good post, falling on a few sets of deaf ears.

[MDlaxfan76]

So sure, she’s probably up in heaven looking for Scalia...

Yeah, that's cute, but she should be looking a little farther south to find THAT guy...speaking of being condescending to attorneys before the SCOTUS...

<<<sarcasm font on and turned up>>>

..

Nothing cute about sanctioning the death of that many fetuses.

Right. Nothing cute either about Republicans watching silently as the expanding Trump-fueled pandemic has led directly to thousands upon thousands of American deaths. The “Pro Life Party” my arse...

..

Whattaboutism much?

Stay on topic. We were talking about Notorious here, Dis.

Besides. 200K deaths is chump change.

There were 623,000 abortions LAST YEAR ALONE. Peep the stats my yellow friend:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ted_States

Did you really mean that 200k deaths is "chump change"???

Even if we were to accept that abortions = "deaths", surely 200K deaths headed to 300k, worst death rate and worst economic impact in developed world, ain't "chump change", right?

Or are you so 'all in' with the Trump CULT that you actually think it's "virtually nobody"???

The point that was made is that a large portion of the GOP has claimed that it is the "Pro Life" party yet there are those in the Trump GOP who think older people or those who have underlying conditions or just unlucky people are worthless and not to be considered "life" worth caring for.

And now we have Der Leader talking about DNA...and people cheer...

There are also lots of us on the right side who desperately care about those older people and people with underlying conditions. It's why so many of us are ticked off by "just a few thousand" elderly people sentenced to death in assisted living homes by Cuomo. Your made-up boogeyman of the cold-hearted republican doesnt work here.

There would be 30 million+ (18+) adults in the US without the abortions that happened from 1970 - 2002. Millions and millions of more children that were aborted from 2003-now.

Imagine the positive nationwide impact of 30M+ more poeple- workers, consumers, brains, entrepreneurs. That's a lot of tax dollars and innovation thrown away by the .gov by legalizing abortions. At the very least, imagine if you had 40% of those 30M aborted adults still around and voting. The Dems might have won PA, MI, WI or FL and not have gotten Trump to begin with.

Unintended consequences of abortion.

I get it. You think the "right side" is against Choice.
You see a woman deciding not to carry a fetus to term, murder.

I'm sure that view is deeply heartfelt and I don't quibble with your view as such.

I do disagree about that interpretation but what you may not understand is that I'd prefer to see fewer abortions as well. However, I'd like to see that through better birth control and health education than through controlling women's choices. I prefer empowering women. But it's no accident that there's so much overlap between those who claim to be "Pro-Life" who are vehemently opposed to contraceptives and sex education. Get back in that kitchen, wench.

But I will quibble with the notion that we'd be far better off had those women who didn't want a child been forced to have that child. Nope, that's a horrible way to increase the productive population in the United States, with far more female poverty, children living in poverty.

Now, on trying to suggest that nursing home deaths were uniquely due to political party, that's just ridiculous. Nursing home deaths have been a large proportion across states, regardless of party in control. It would be fair to say that there were more such deaths in the states hit the earliest, as PPE supplies were so scarce and the understanding of the virus was so nascent, but that didn't have a darn thing to do with political party.

You want to actually be 'pro-life'?
Wear a darn mask, stay away from crowds, and encourage everyone else to do the same.

The good news is people don't fit into boxes like people always think. I do personally think the "right side" is carrying a baby to term. I am also not going to judge those who have abortions. Murderer? That's between them and their maker. And who knows, perhaps I'm a "murderer" in His eyes for being pro contraception?

The same way you respect my deep held belief, I understand and respect that there are incredible circumstances where rape, incest and health of the mother are legitimate concerns and burdens for the mother. I do think that is more the outlier than the norm for most abortions and used as a straw man for the general discussion. I know I wont be changing their/your minds either.

Perhaps because I'm generally hopeful, I just don't see something transient and defeatable like poverty as a reason for abortion. But that's just me. I'm also pro-social safety-net to help those in poverty that need it.

And yes I do wear a mask, avoid large crowds and encourage my immediate family to do the same. But I don't expect others to wear them.

SO I guess you CAN be anti-abortion, pro-woman, pro-contraception, pro-personal freedom, and pro-mask.

good post, thanks for sharing your perspective.

[ggait]

But I don't expect others to wear them.

Honest question. Why do you think this makes sense?

Because the mask is about not harming others. Not protecting yourself.

Smoking cigs, for example, is a personal choice for which the user assumes the risk and accepts the consequences.

Refusing to wear a mask is more like second hand smoke. Or driving drunk or driving 150 MPH. Situations where your personal right/choice externalizes the risk/consequences to others. That's not WWJD.

[seacoaster]

I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

Botom line

Democrats couldn't get legislation on abortion.

They packed the supreme court.

First the court found a right to privacy somewhere in the constitutional ether.

Then they found a right to an abortion in that privacy vapor.

They know the threads holding their abortion religion together are very thin.

So they've attempted to destroy every conservative judge nominated to the supreme court.

65 million stopped hearts and counting. And you all want more without actually writing legislation.

Don't remember when exactly we traded the ermine robes of a monarch for the black robes of a supreme court judge.

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

You missed the points, as you very often do.

First, parties have no place in the Constitution. If you want to point to something contorting the Constitution, Exhibits A and B are the political parties. I was talking about legal entitlement and power: they are exactly the same now as they were in the Obama-Garland episode.

Second, you missed the point about the raw exercise of power, without any element of consensus-building or moderation. It really doesn't matter whose "fault" it is: the reality is that the Senate acting will be the Katie Bar the Door event of our lifetimes. The "norm" established will have no relation, except by happenstance, to justice, fairness, or "good" governance. Your devotion to Party -- and frankly, a Party that really no longer stands for anything but the exercise of power and the payoff of its leadership/stakeholders -- is the anchor sinking this ship.

The "culture" is changing, and I doubt it looks like you. And that's the problem you have with it. Keep holding on; I can hear your fingernails scraping across the floor.

[MDlaxfan76]

But I don't expect others to wear them.

Honest question. Why do you think this makes sense?

Because the mask is about not harming others. Not protecting yourself.

Smoking cigs, for example, is a personal choice for which the user assumes the risk and accepts the consequences.

Refusing to wear a mask is more like second hand smoke. Or driving drunk or driving 150 MPH. Situations where your personal right/choice externalizes the risk/consequences to others. That's not WWJD.

I missed that bit, good question.

[Peter Brown]

I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

Botom line

Democrats couldn't get legislation on abortion.

They packed the supreme court.

First the court found a right to privacy somewhere in the constitutional ether.

Then they found a right to an abortion in that privacy vapor.

They know the threads holding their abortion religion together are very thin.

So they've attempted to destroy every conservative judge nominated to the supreme court.

65 million stopped hearts and counting. And you all want more without actually writing legislation.

Don't remember when exactly we traded the ermine robes of a monarch for the black robes of a supreme court judge.

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

You missed the points, as you very often do.

First, parties have no place in the Constitution. If you want to point to something contorting the Constitution, Exhibits A and B are the political parties. I was talking about legal entitlement and power: they are exactly the same now as they were in the Obama-Garland episode.

Second, you missed the point about the raw exercise of power, without any element of consensus-building or moderation. It really doesn't matter whose "fault" it is: the reality is that the Senate acting will be the Katie Bar the Door event of our lifetimes. The "norm" established will have no relation, except by happenstance, to justice, fairness, or "good" governance. Your devotion to Party -- and frankly, a Party that really no longer stands for anything but the exercise of power and the payoff of its leadership/stakeholders -- is the anchor sinking this ship.

The "culture" is changing, and I doubt it looks like you. And that's the problem you have with it. Keep holding on; I can hear your fingernails scraping across the floor.

You doubt that the majority culture looks like a guy who opposes abortion, such as 6 and kramerica do?

That might say more about you than them.