Amy Coney Barrett

[Golden Goat]

4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

Cannot the same be said that the Dems warned McConnell if you fill RGB with Barrett during an election year (which is his opposite position with Garland)  that they'll pack the courts using the technique of McConnell's getting rid of the Supreme Court filabuster. You know, you reap what you sow.

Yep. Dangerous game of chicken that should have never started. No winners here.

That said, Democrats are not going to pack the court if Biden wins. However, if Trump somehow wins -- and the court somehow shifts to 7-2 -- and a Democrat wins in 2026 -- I'd change my bet.

[Backintheday544]

1 minute ago, Golden Goat said:

Yep. Dangerous game of chicken that should have never started. No winners here.

That said, Democrats are not going to pack the court if Biden wins. However, if Trump somehow wins -- and the court somehow shifts to 7-2 -- and a Democrat wins in 2026 -- I'd change my bet.

 

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?

13 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Read my response to Alf a few posts above

 

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.

[dpberr]

The Democrats will not pack the Supreme Court.  The party is led by stupid people but there is a floor to even that level of stupidity.  

 

It's mutually assured destruction because they assume that the tactic will be warmly received by the American public (it won't) and that the Republicans will never win the White House or Senate ever again where they will write the rules. (they will).  

 

The DNC is a fractured party.  The Biden/Obama/Clinton "legacy" Democrats will be playing a game of desperate keep away in a Biden administration from not only the Harris camp, which has their own plans  - but also the fringe of the party,  which is a danger to both camps.  

[Golden Goat]

5 minutes 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?

You omitted one key word in your post -- "Independents." We're out there. Lots of us. And we sway elections. Many wouldn't approve of court-packing, and if Democrats win and go that route, they'd better pass stuff quickly, because they'd likely get squashed in the midterms. This election absolutely is a referendum on Trump. The 2022 midterms will be a referendum on Biden/Harris.

As for the Tea Party: To me, they're the "Squad" Democrats. Their beliefs are not representative of most Americans', and they're mostly looking to pick a fight -- even if it's with their own side. If Biden wins -- heck, even if the Democrats take the Senate, too -- it won't be smooth sailing. The radicals in the party will try to move Biden far left, and if he does that -- full circle -- he pi$$es off many Independents. Unfortunately, that's politics on both sides, and that's why Americans consistently lose, regardless of who "wins."

[Cinga]

58 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

It's not my party. 

I think this is all way overblown: Dems harp on voter suppression every election (I can't wait till the stories of "long lines waiting to vote" and "misdirected to the wrong polling place" on the afternoon of November 3), and now we have Repubs joining in with "voter fraud" (watch for the "more ballots cast than people living in [Dem] precinct" stories).

 

 

Joining in???????????? Where the **** have you been the last 20 plus years? 

47 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

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.

 

First, DC is not a state because it was set up under the Constitution as a neutral seat of the federal government and it should stay that way. Don't like it, change the Constitution.

 

As I said earlier, I don't particularly care the politics of a justice, but either should they because their job is to rule on the law, not make the law vis legislate from the bench.

 

edit to add, the Dems also want to add PR and possibly Guam too, meaning the Senate would be Dem into perpetuity.... 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Cinga

[B-Man]

 

 

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee had opening statements from senators and the SCOTUS nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. You might have seen some or all of it on any of a number of media outlets, except perhaps CNN. Jeff Greenfield wanted to know why CNN didn’t find today’s hearing to be a high priority:

 

 

 

 

Judiciary Committee member, Sen. Ted Cruz, was happy to provide a possibility:

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

 

It did though when McConnell made up some dumb rule 4 years ago that never existed before.

 

 

This is false..........as you know.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

....no need to say anything more........repulsive destruction........sad..............

Sen. Kennedy laments how Kavanaugh hearings played out: ‘It was a freak show’

Kennedy made the comments during hearings on nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court

By Bradford Betz | Fox News

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., speaking Monday during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, decried how the confirmation hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh played out, calling them a “freak show.”

Kennedy made the comments while speaking directly to Barrett. The Republican senator acknowledged how quickly the confirmation process can be derailed by partisan attacks.

“Now, Judge, I understand this thing can turn sour real fast,” Kennedy told Barrett. “We all watched the hearings for Justice Kavanagh. It was a freak show. It looked like the cantina bar scene out of Star Wars.”

 

The confirmation process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh was overshadowed by allegations of past sexual misconduct that threatened to derail his confirmation. Kavanaugh vehemently denied all the accusations.

 

Kennedy further criticized the harsh treatment Barrett has received since President Trump formally nominated her late last month following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-kennedy-kavanaugh-hearings-freak-show

 

[shoshin]

2 hours ago, spartacus said:

removing Scalia looks more like another orchestrated op

 

 

1 hour ago, Golden Goat said:

That said, Democrats are not going to pack the court if Biden wins. 

 

I believe you are incorrect but hope that you are right. The historical precedent for 11 or 13 Justices is that 9 was based on the then-number of Circuit Courts of appeal. We are at 11 plus 2 these days. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by shoshin

[Backintheday544]

31 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

Joining in???????????? Where the **** have you been the last 20 plus years? 

 

First, DC is not a state because it was set up under the Constitution as a neutral seat of the federal government and it should stay that way. Don't like it, change the Constitution.

 

As I said earlier, I don't particularly care the politics of a justice, but either should they because their job is to rule on the law, not make the law vis legislate from the bench.

 

edit to add, the Dems also want to add PR and possibly Guam too, meaning the Senate would be Dem into perpetuity.... 

 

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

[Unforgiven]

 

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

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Unforgiven

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

7 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

 

Feel the love from the lefty hate cult

 

...let's just keep relaxing mental hygiene......a dyed in the wool Dem, condescending, arrogant cousin and his wife unfriended another cousin on FB who is a Trump supporter....to quote, "you're a lunatic and probably unfit as a father raising children in such a radical household"......CAN'T make this stuff up folks.......

Edited October 12, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[BillsFanNC]

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Just now, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

 

 

...perhaps Joe thinks "packing" means they're "moving".........

[B-Man]

 

 

WELL, ...............it is FEINSTEIN:............. And it fooled Tibsy

 

 

 

 

Dianne Feinstein Opens Barrett Hearings a Great Big Whopper About Preexisting Conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

WELL, ...............it is FEINSTEIN:............. And it fooled Tibsy

 

 

 

 

Dianne Feinstein Opens Barrett Hearings a Great Big Whopper About Preexisting Conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...does her spy driver have Covid-19?....................

[B-Man]

[Golden Goat]

56 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

What about "women of color" who support Barrett's nomination? Or does the bigot assume African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Indians and Native Americans have a herd mentality?

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Golden Goat

[Koko78]

12 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:

What about "women of color" who support Barrett's nomination? Or does the bigot assume African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Indians and Native Americans have a herd mentality?

 

 

Well, if they're not for whatever the Democrats want at the moment, they "ain't black".

[The Frankish Reich]

2 hours ago, BillsFanNC 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."

Edited October 12, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[BillsFanNC]

12 minutes 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."

 

Why not go all the way back to the beginning on the ACA? Democrats pushed it through without any Republican input...telling the public they needed to pass it in order to find out what's in it. Amazing how that unwillingness to work across the aisle on such important legislation that impacted nearly everyone and everything across our society has devolved into such an acrimonious tooth and nail battle. Shocking.

[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?