ChiGoose

The committee has stated it will release the transcripts at the end of the investigation, which they expect to be September. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect them to release them sooner, but if they do not release them when they are done with the probe, they should be rightfully criticized and it would taint everything they have been working on.

…That’s not what the independent state legislature doctrine is about. The Constitution states that the states can set the time, place, and manner of federal elections but that the Congress may change the rules through law. So to your point, states could pass laws saying that senators were selected by state legislatures, not through a direct vote of the people. That could be changed through Congressional action or a constitutional amendment (or the state legislature could change it themselves). The US Congress can also set laws that create guardrails for elections and courts could review state laws to ensure they are constitutional. Under the Independent State Legislature (ISL) Doctrine, states get to set the rules and those rules are not reviewable by the courts. Also, when state law and federal law conflict, it should always be resolved in favor of the state (essentially endorsing nullification). This would allow states to do everything within their power to rig elections in favor of a particular party. The gerrymandered map that the Dems in NY tried to pass was thrown out by the courts. That can’t happen under ISL. In fact, the Dems would be incentivized to see if they could eliminate every GOP district. With no way for courts to challenge redistricting maps for things like compactness, they could draw a map that grabs a heavily blue area in NYC and connects that population to the Southern Tier. The natural endgame for ISL is to create single party states where only the most extreme candidates can win. It would further fracture the country and erode the voice of the people. It also has little to no basis in our history and is antithetical to the ideals of our Founding. Any jurist who actually believes in Originalism would reject ISL out of hand.

I do not seem to recall George W. Bush conspiring with a small group of aides to take actions they knew were illegal in order to delay or prevent the certification of the election. In fact, contrary to your statement, I have a hard time recalling any president who wanted to prevent the certification of the election, was told that doing so was illegal, and still pushed his people to try to make it happen.

Not if you read the article. While many articles we see today are following the laws to their logical conclusions, the article I posted included a doctor talking about the problems they are already seeing.

Minnesota lawmakers vote to legalize edibles. Some did so accidentally.

That would be a tremendous shock to the founders and the authors of the 9th amendment.

A lot of people here seem to want a committee to release all of their evidence and testimony while still investigating, allowing parties to coordinate their testimony with what was already provided and obscure or outright hide the truth. Which is not how an investigative body would ever work.

Pharmacy denies woman medicine for miscarriage. Thankfully, she was able to get the medicine at another pharmacy.

I imagine you might be able to find a way to reach a common ground on the woman’s interest to privacy and autonomy, and the state’s interest in the baby’s life. Maybe in the first trimester, the woman can get an abortion; in the second trimester, it can be restricted based on criteria like health and viability; and in the third she could only get an abortion if the fetus was not viable or the woman’s life was in jeopardy. And you could use very clear language to differentiate out treatment for miscarriages or for other conditions that use some of the same medicines.

The article is quoting a rheumatologist saying they are already seeing this.

But there’s no way this Originalist SCOTUS would go for this since it has no basis on the history of the US, has only existed for like 20 years, and is antithetical to the vision of the founders. Unless, of course, Originalism is just bunk and a way of picking the conclusion you want and making up a reason after…

Rheumatologists seeing problems with getting patients methotrexate.

Oh, they definitely can. I just don’t think they will.

10 year old forced to travel out of state for abortion.

I think that this is a good point that highlights some of the nuance that seems to be getting missed. So far, we have seen testimony and audio of *reports* of AR-15s. While there is testimony that some weapons and body armor was confiscated, I haven’t seen confirmation that there were actually AR-15s present.

Fun fact: Lin Wood is a flat earther. If you hired Lin, Giuliani, Eastman, and Sidney Powell to argue you out of a $100 speeding ticket, you’d likely end up getting the death penalty.

Actually I got it from Trump, Giuliani, and Eastman. They were the ones talking about it.

GOP candidates are generally running on abortion bans while Dems are talking about codifying Roe into law. Is your point that voters do not care about the abortion issue?

I don't watch CNN or MSNBC or any cable news. I fully expect the GOP to win the House and think they'll probably take the Senate too. Polls have been indicating a bloodbath for some time. Some think Roe will change that, but I'm skeptical it will still be driving polls by the Fall and even if it does, it would only mitigate, not reverse, the GOP wins.

I am not predicting a Dem pickup in the Senate. It's currently a toss up with a slight edge to the GOP. That's why that part starts with the word "if." How changing the filibuster could impact bipartisanship: Frankly, I just don't think this is sustainable or good for the country: (Source)

I don't dislike the things Trump said and did because Trump said and did them, I dislike them because they were generally bad and/or dumb. If and when Trump actually does something good, I'll acknowledge it. I think Operation Warpspeed was one of the greatest endeavors in the last several decades and lays a blueprint for how we could address crisis in the future. At the start of his presidency, I actually turned on Twitter notification for Trump so I would know what he was up to since he personally managed his account (unlike most politicians). That, more than anything, shaped my thoughts about him. His own words. Not CNN or what reporters said he said, but what he was actually saying and tweeting

Congress, that thing we have from our democracy, passed laws to better our environment. Since congress is a legislative body, they are not in a position to oversee all of the regulations and enforcement. So Congress, that thing we have from our democracy, voted to have an agency enforce the laws that they, congress (that thing we have from our democracy) had passed. In our democracy, we have a congress, which writes the laws, and an executive branch, which executes them. We can debate about how much authority congress should delegate for rulemaking and enforcement, but congress passing laws and the executive branch enforcing them is literally how our democracy works.

Ignorance runs rampant in congress already. Creating incentives for them to actually *do* something might actually make them take measures to address our problems instead of spending all of their time grandstanding for the cameras. I do not understand your point about the cities and the electoral college. Even if they did away with the Electoral College (which they won't), that would just mean everyone gets one vote that counts just as much as everyone else's in presidential elections. The top 100 cities in the country only contain 20% of the population, clearly not enough for whatever the scenario you're outlining is. Part of the reason there was so much hatred from the beginning with Trump is that he's an ####### who acts like a dick and talks absolute nonsense that shows he has little idea about what he's talking about. He was never an outsider savior, he was always a grifting conman. Also, term limits would be the biggest win for the lobbyists you could ever imagine. If you think the biggest problem right now is that big moneyed insiders don't have enough influence in congress, then term limits is the solution for you. Ultimately, what we need is serious electoral reform so that we stop electing morons and #######, and if we do, we can hold them accountable and remove them from office.

Are you... rooting for pollution...?

Trump is an incompetent buffoon. He didn't need any help in screwing up. But he did manage to line his pockets and those of his friends and family, so he's got that going for him. Also, the idea that the party that is so inept that their legislative priorities are now on hold because an 82-year old needs hip surgery (not to mention a certain senator from California who probably doesn't even know who she is anymore) is somehow following a grand plot to destroy the country is laughable.