You know that in all likelihood the GOP majority in the Senate will INCREASE as a result of the 2018 elections don't you?
Ed Whelan, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, thinks Trump will pick his nominee next month, which gives the Senate Judiciary Committee time to have a hearing in August since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) canceled all but a week of the August recess. A vote could happen in September and that would give us a new justice in time for the next term in October. Looks like McConnell had that in mind: https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/06/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-is-retiring/
Just in time for the midterms. No Republican would dare risk the wrath of the voters by straying. Especially since everyone in the GOP likes the list of names that Trump has. It's the list Gorsuch came from.
I bet the Democrats are wishing they had a filibuster on SCOTUS nominees right about now. As I said in April, 2017...
I also just realized that the Democrats are really in no position to try and block any nominee. Even if a couple of Republicans balk. Democrats have, if I recall correctly, 25 Senate seats up for election. Eight of those seats are in states that Trump won by double digits. Dems have a choice: stall the nominee and possibly lose those eight seats OR let the nominee through. This summer is going to be a blast.
And if they lose those 8 states the Republicans go in to 2019 with a near overwhelming Senate majority and they will confirm whomever they want.
Neither Susan Collins nor Lisa Murkowski is up for re-election in 2018. And Maine is not exactly a state that demands party fealty.
Still haven't actually heard an argument from Paladin as to WHY he feels a conservative lock on the SC "for another generation" is so essential... Again: what Dem policies terrify you so much, or what shady shit do you want the GOP to pull?
This is a replay of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement. There were no Republicans calling for a nominee with a similar ideological bent - so you ended up with an unAmerican conservative shill named Sam Alito. Same thing here, all the Republicans care about is finding the most extreme nominee who will guaranty unfettered access to death sticks and complete control over a woman's uterus.
Because social justice by definition isn't justice. It's injustice. And because The Constitution. Have you tried to see a doctor lately? Everybody should be terrified of Dem policies. Hell, even Dems are terrified of them, only they think the problem is "insurance companies". I have a major problem with the war on Christianity. Just how many bakeries do you have to drive past to find one who has a religious objection to your rainbow cake? Weren't you recently looking for examples of liberals doing evil? Well, persecuting Christians is evil, fucker.
Yes, it takes longer and it costs more. The co-pays are so high that many people ironically cannot afford to use insurance which was created to protect them from the cost of unaffordable care. And to the extent all these rationing measures are caused by more people being covered, you are probably paying for their care too.
My copays are pretty much the same, and I haven't noticed any change in how long it takes for me to get an appointment when I need one. But since I have a pre-existing condition, Democratic policies mean I won't be refused coverage. Policies that Republicans fought against tooth and nail, and are still trying to undermine despite realizing how popular they are. So go on, tell me how I'd be better off under the old system.
Because it's harder to sell the nuclear option when the Democrats have established themselves as the party willing to reach across the aisle. By allowing Gorsuch, Dems could have more credibility filibustering now. Fortunately, Schumer nuked all that by filibustering right out of the gate. Just as well, because filibustering judges was going out of style anyway.
I haven't noticed a change in co-pays, and my doctor's office can more often than not see me the same day I call for an appointment.
Look, if you are uninsurable, then that's a welfare problem. You may require state subsidized care. But that doesn't mean we should have fucked up the insurance market to provide it. You need redistribution. That means you need resources from people who have them. Insurance, on the other hand, is for people who can't afford expenses. So yes, Obamacare has royally fucked up insurance for everybody unnecessarily just so uninsurable people can feel like they're insured. And in the meantime, people who actually pay for their insurance can suffer the cost of pretending to insure the medical equivalent of houses that are already on fire. The problem with Obamacare is that it redistributes from everyone who buys insurance without considering that many of those people can't afford the redistribution. And even after subsidies, a lot of otherwise healthy people of modest means who could nevertheless afford decent insurance and good care are now paying more and getting less care. Or worse, they're getting no care at all because they have been notionally "upgraded" to Medicaid. But I'm glad you got yours. The end justifies the means. We could never have accomplished that by just taxing the rich and leaving poor people's health insurance the fuck alone.
So it's safe to say that when you need a neurologist or an MRI, you won't be able to tell how much more it costs now or how much longer the wait is? Let me know when you're deciding whether to move forward with a procedure because you don't have the $5000 co-pay yet.
"Persecuting". LOL. Reversing centuries of Christian dominance over society and pointing out that your religion doesn't give you the right to trample the rights of others is nowhere near persecution. White Christian males are still the dominant force in American society and will be for decades to come. Anything else is GOP scaremongering to keep the donations flowing in.
Sorry, asshole, but some honest baker in the sticks doesn't owe you shit for that big chip on your shoulder. In case you haven't noticed, his religious freedom is an actual protected constitutional right. And it's a complete strawman to frame my argument as a fund drive for the church. Just goes to show that you're a bunch of intolerant haters who fully deserve to be pushed back by any legitimate court. That Colorado commission's treatment of that poor guy was criminal, and it really revealed your collective contempt for the founding principles of this country that you claim to love.
Oh, I'm fully aware you guys aren't HAPPY about it. You're now Henry Hill at the end of Goodfellas, bemoaning that he has to wait in line and eat standard quality food "like any other schnook".
You have the right to practice your religion. You don't have the right to run a business without a licence. If that licence says you don't discriminate on religious or racial grounds, you either suck it up or you don't go into business. It's really that simple. The recent SC decision will open up all sorts of shit beyond that one baker, believe me. Bible can be interpreted to say you don't serve niggers? Some fucker will try it. Because Christians ALWAYS try it. Deny someone their rights and whine about yours when they complain, that's all we've seen outta the US churches the last decade.
Well, that's a risk we'll just have to take. File it in the bin where you put letting guilty people go free sometimes to ensure that no innocent man gets wrongfully imprisoned.
