Amy Coney Barrett

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

Why not go all the way back to the beginning on the ACA?

 

Because history, to these disingenuous dipshits, only began 4 years ago.

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

No, what Trump is doing isn't "court packing."

But let's take a step back and look at what the Repubs did with the ACA (Obamacare).

- supported an argument in the Supreme Court that it must be invalidated because the individual mandate exceeded federal powers

- lost that argument when Chief Justice Roberts reconceptualized the mandate as a valid "tax"

- then cynically zeroed out the "tax" penalty, leaving the mandate hanging there with the taxing power severed from it

- then supported a lawsuit that the mandate is unconstitutional all over again, and that it cannot be severed from the ACA, such that the entire ACA must be scrapped.

 

In other words, they deliberately passed legislation that would make the ACA unconstitutional (in their view). Allow me to rephrase: they passed, and the President (sworn to uphold the Constitution!) signed what they believed to be an unconstitutional bill.

 

There's your "party of the constitution."

 

So why would Republicans want to tear down this bill?  Could it be because it failed to deliver what it promised (lower insurance costs), cast sweeping mandates to all of the states limiting coverage choices and getting rid of the ACA is the only way to get Dems to engage in something better?  It was a terrible bill with the possible exceptions that it expanded Medicaid coverage to many more people and eliminated the pre-existing condition restrictions and I'll throw in 26 year olds on family plans.  These would be perceived as positives by many and both parties don't want to eliminate any of them. 

 

There is no way, however, if you looked at the details of health insurance and all of its restrictions/regulations currently that you'd conclude that the current system is well crafted.  There's no price transparency and prices for services vary wildly based on what type of insurance you have.  It hurts small businesses that can't get rates as low as the big business right next door. It ties insurance and choice to employment.  It limits who can have an HSA. It tells states what coverages they have to offer including coverages that some people don't want.  It doesn't hold the insured accountable at all for maintaining their health better like life insurance often does.  It continues to restrict insurance being written state by state with a population that is very migratory.  The state exchanges one by one have essentially collapsed once the fed dollars from the early years of the plan dried up.  The thing was and is a turd and many of the criticisms of the thing at inception have turned out to be true.

 

Dems of course now want to scrap it in favor of national one size fits all and expect we the people to believe that if this is be done, it would be run anywhere near well, within budget and to the satisfaction of the population.  Laughable.

 

Republicans on the other hand want to torpedo the thing without a solid replacement plan but again legislatively they probably see repeal as a necessary first step. 

 

Both parties, the politicians themselves, have no business crafting whatever is next.  Hire experts. 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

5 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

The Dems packing the court is contingent on them winning the Senate.

 

Will he or won't he, it is hard to tell. If he does it, who will it anger? The right. They're not voting for him anyways. In a scenario where the Dems control the House, Senate and White House, you're going to take a gamble then on if Dems can keep the get out to vote in the mid-terms (historically that hasn't happened).

 

Not doing it angers the left. I personally think Biden is only there for 4 years anyways so that could give them some coverage in 2026 to still keep an engaged left.

 

I would say go for it. Since Trump was sworn in, the Dems have been more engaged then ever (similar to the Tea Party post Obama). What can the Dems do to keep that momentum, whereas the Tea Party lost theirs?

 

Not to go off topic but on your points:

 

I lived in DC. It's crazy it's not a state. The only reason it's not a state is politics at this point. Republicans don't want it because it adds two more Dem senators.

 

Not adding DC does keep more of a competitive balance to the Senate where either party has a shot to win.

 

If you support keeping the Senate the way it is, why not support keeping the Supreme Court similar in structure? Let the Dems add 4 judges of Barrett passes. 3 liberal and 1 moderate. The court will then have a similar make up and no one party is in control.

So, you would legitimize politics in the SCOTUS? The Supreme's sole job is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Conservative justices not only understand that but believe in it. Liberal justices believe that it is in their purview to right all wrongs and legislate from the bench. For our republic to function properly each branch should stay in their own lane. 

[shoshin]

20 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

So why would Republicans want to tear down this bill? 

 

 

 

I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Executive and could have used, I dunno, the legislative process to fix the healthcare issue and not manipulate the courts to legislate on their behalf. 

 

Just a thought. 

 

[Unforgiven]

 

[ALF]

Amy is well qualified but would she be confirmed if 60 votes were still needed.

 

The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, thus the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court. Senate cloture rules historically required a two-thirds affirmative vote to advance nominations to a vote; this was changed to a three-fifths supermajority in 1975.

 

In 2013, Senate Democrats — then in the majority — triggered the nuclear option for the first time.

Frustrated with what they considered the relentless Republican obstruction of Obama's appointments, Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, changed the rules so that lower court and Cabinet nominees could be confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold.

 

McConnell railed against the change at the time, though the 60-vote threshold still applied to high court nominees.

However, when it came time to confirm Gorsuch in 2017, near-unified Democratic opposition and the GOP's own slim majority of 51 Republican senators made getting to a 60-vote supermajority impossible.

 

Last April,2017  McConnell triggered a rules change, clearing the way for Gorsuch to be confirmed with a simple majority. The use of the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees was dramatic for a body like the Senate, which operates on tradition and precedent.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271

 

2017: Supreme Court nominations
On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans invoked the nuclear option to remove the Supreme Court exception created in 2013. This was after Senate Democrats filibustered the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States, after the Senate Republicans had previously refused to take up Merrick Garland's nomination by President Obama in 2016

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[Cinga]

5 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Yea but imagine what the founding fathers would think if you told them you could fit 700,000 people in 10 square miles!

That's irrelevant. The Constitution can be changed, but not ignored.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, Unforgiven said:

 

Feel the love from the lefty hate cult

Bonus fun: notice the 'white' part rofl.

Bonus # 2 Notice Mr skinny jeans/sandals and his lol raincoat

 

I hate when you write out a great sign but realize you’re letters are too big for the page.

 

it happened to Shakespeare too.  Fact.

[Cinga]

13 minutes ago, ALF said:

In 2013, Senate Democrats — then in the majority — triggered the nuclear option for the first time.

Frustrated with what they considered the relentless Republican obstruction of Obama's appointments, Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, changed the rules so that lower court and Cabinet nominees could be confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold

 

The worst part of this was the cabinet officials however only leaving the high court positions alone I think was only done as a bone. Don't even think if the shoe were on the other foot the Democrats wouldn't have done away with that too. Same with this election year nomination. Don't think for a second that the Dems, if they has the Potus and the Senate wouldn't fill this seat.

[ALF]

Trump pushed McConnell to pass the nuclear option for SC confirmation, now we have all out partisan war. This will not end well.

[Backintheday544]

38 minutes ago, Cinga said:

That's irrelevant. The Constitution can be changed, but not ignored.

 

And making DC a state would change the Constitution. So let's get the process started already.

[Cinga]

1 minute ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

And making DC a state would change the Constitution. So let's get the process started already.

That's not how the amendment process works but nice try

[Backintheday544]

23 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

The worst part of this was the cabinet officials however only leaving the high court positions alone I think was only done as a bone. Don't even think if the shoe were on the other foot the Democrats wouldn't have done away with that too. Same with this election year nomination. Don't think for a second that the Dems, if they has the Potus and the Senate wouldn't fill this seat.

 

The Republicans should fill this seat. It's in the Constitution that they can.

 

However, it also was that Garland should have been brought to the Senate. Republicans betrayed that. They're going back on their word now. Lindsey Grahams spine looks worse than Daks foot.

Just now, Cinga said:

That's not how the amendment process works but nice try

 

I didn't say how the amendment process works, I just said start the process. Give those.700,000 US citizens taxation with representation.

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, Cinga said:

That's irrelevant. The Constitution can be changed, but not ignored.

As with "court packing," there would be nothing unconstitutional about creating a state out of most of the District of Columbia. The constitution establishes a federal district, which initially included Arlington, Virginia, which was ceded back to the State of Virginia later on. My favored solution to enfranchise DC residents would be to cede much of the District to Maryland. But that won't happen -- it would disrupt political interests within Maryland, and -- let's be honest -- wouldn't accomplish the goal of getting 2 more Democratic senators.

But the plans do not run afoul of the Constitution. It's a political issue, and it will be settled at the ballot box next month.

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, shoshin said:

 

I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Executive and could have used, I dunno, the legislative process to fix the healthcare issue and not manipulate the courts to legislate on their behalf. 

 

Just a thought. 

 

 

Agree.  This is such a big important matter, both parties should invest some quality time in this.  The left only knows tax and spend and the right has had 10 years to put together an alternative and pedal it.  Both woefully short. 

[The Frankish Reich]

44 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Agree.  This is such a big important matter, both parties should invest some quality time in this.  The left only knows tax and spend and the right has had 10 years to put together an alternative and pedal it.  Both woefully short. 

Oh for the days when only the left loved to tax and spend.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-09/trump-has-approved-a-revised-stimulus-plan-kudlow-says

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-total-cost-of-trumps-new-tariffs/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/14/donald-trump-coronavirus-farmer-bailouts-359932

 

Somewhere there's a small government Republican Party left. I'm just not sure exactly where.

 

[shoshin]

4 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Agree.  This is such a big important matter, both parties should invest some quality time in this.  The left only knows tax and spend and the right has had 10 years to put together an alternative and pedal it.  Both woefully short. 

Trump now saying he has a plan coming that will be better has to be the most hollow of so many of his empty promises. 4 years and on election eve, he’s now promising a health care plan? He’s like a kid handing in his homework late amd trying to get credit. 
 

The Reps spend without taxing. That’s worse IMO. At least the Dems pretend to raise the taxes to cover the bills. 

[Doc Brown]

8 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

So why would Republicans want to tear down this bill?  Could it be because it failed to deliver what it promised (lower insurance costs), cast sweeping mandates to all of the states limiting coverage choices and getting rid of the ACA is the only way to get Dems to engage in something better?  It was a terrible bill with the possible exceptions that it expanded Medicaid coverage to many more people and eliminated the pre-existing condition restrictions and I'll throw in 26 year olds on family plans.  These would be perceived as positives by many and both parties don't want to eliminate any of them. 

 

There is no way, however, if you looked at the details of health insurance and all of its restrictions/regulations currently that you'd conclude that the current system is well crafted.  There's no price transparency and prices for services vary wildly based on what type of insurance you have.  It hurts small businesses that can't get rates as low as the big business right next door. It ties insurance and choice to employment.  It limits who can have an HSA. It tells states what coverages they have to offer including coverages that some people don't want.  It doesn't hold the insured accountable at all for maintaining their health better like life insurance often does.  It continues to restrict insurance being written state by state with a population that is very migratory.  The state exchanges one by one have essentially collapsed once the fed dollars from the early years of the plan dried up.  The thing was and is a turd and many of the criticisms of the thing at inception have turned out to be true.

 

Dems of course now want to scrap it in favor of national one size fits all and expect we the people to believe that if this is be done, it would be run anywhere near well, within budget and to the satisfaction of the population.  Laughable.

 

Republicans on the other hand want to torpedo the thing without a solid replacement plan but again legislatively they probably see repeal as a necessary first step. 

 

Both parties, the politicians themselves, have no business crafting whatever is next.  Hire experts. 

 

 

If they had a solid replacement plan they would have repealed and replaced it.  If you hire experts they're going to suggest some form of single payer like all other developed countries.  

[fansince88]

OH NO!!! SHE IS CATHOLIC!!!!

Edited October 13, 2020 by fansince88

[Backintheday544]

42 minutes ago, fansince88 said:

OH NO!!! SHE IS CATHOLIC!!!!

 

What would the rights reaction be if the Democrats nominate a Muslim?