SCOTUS leaves ACA in place
- Thread starter KnighttimeJoe
- Start date
I was told a SCOTUS appointed by mostly conservative(ish) presidents would turn the country into A Handmaid’s Tale. When does that start?
When the SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade.
I've come to believe the backlash will be such that it will be one of those cases of taking one step forward and two steps back.
Yeah, I'm also very concerned about ending the slaughter of innocent unborn babies. That would be 4 or 5 steps back.
For now, you feign concern about the "innocent unborn"
...until the government forces newly pregnant Black women to carry to term rather than choosing an abortion.
Funny how this works. THEN you and your buds can become 'very concerned' about those 'Black Welfare Moms popping out the babies' for your tax dollars to support, right?
Why is it that you assume black women are so stupid they won’t be able to stop constantly “popping out babies” without abortion?
Good ol’ racism of low expectations.
Nah. I'm totally OK with black women aborting every pregnancy. I think it could potentially be a good public policy. I'd even go so far as to put more abortion clinics up in predominantly black neighborhoods.
Who told you that? I mean the appointments seemed to be a big deal for some. It’s why Obama’s nominee was blocked for a year and why RBGs replacement was rushed through in a week. Giving conservatives a supermajority on the court was a major campaign trail talking point for the former President. His handpicked replacements siding with him on issues (such as 2020 election cases) was more his pipe dream rather and anything actually based in reality. Reality is the court tries to be unbiased and non political.
Which brings up the question: why all of the talk about packing the court?
I have no issue with any SCOTUS justice other than Roberts. Sure, some lean left and some lean right but generally speaking they all have rational judgment on why they rule the way they do.
Talk of packing the court is for the same reason that nominees went without hearings or were rushed through depending on who controlled congress and the presidency. Looking for any perceived advantage, real or imagined. I haven’t seen much talk of court packing outside of a big to do made about Bidens non-answer in debates leading up to the election. In reality, moderate democrats in the senate won’t allow it so it hasn’t become an issue in this legislative session.
She had a point. Take religion out of the equation and there's a really really good argument to be made for strategically placing abortion clinics in areas where reproduction of the populace is detrimental to society. I wouldn't mandate it, but making it easier and more affordable for certain segments of society seems like a wise policy.
Talk of packing the court is a veiled threat to the nine to follow along with the Executive’s desire.
Only the executive has made no mention of packing the court. Conservative media leading up to the election made it a hot button “will he or won’t he” issue. In reality the president cannot set the size of the court. And for good reason.
Do we have a calculation of how much money the US saves with each abortion? Welfare + Medicaid + Tax Credit ($4000 x 18 years) + jail = a lot of tax money saved.
BTW, if you compare the people against abortion with the people that say using condoms is a sin, there is big overlap
Perhaps you might want to see what group of women are most effected if abortions are made illegal.
Back to the subject at hand: this is THE lasting legacy of the Obama administration. Republicans have been trying to kill it, with failure, for over 10 years. Trump promised to axe it on day one, and failed. He promised to kill it and give us a new bigly beautiful great healthcare plan after that—and failed.
So, are we still dealing with this in 10 years?
So, are we still dealing with this in 10 years?
Last edited:
The mind-blowing hypocrisy of the whole thing is that Republicans were actively campaigning in 2018 to 'PROTECT' insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions covered by the ACA -- while at the same time using the courts to try to eliminate them.
President Biden created a commission to “study” it. That’s the first step to presenting a proposal that he can then apply public and political leverage to push through. Moving the ball is a pretty strong implication.
There are many facets of court reform worthy of discussion and investigation beyond “packing” of the Supreme Court. The commission may look into the size of the court…among other things such as length of service and turnover of justices. I don’t think it’s a bad idea after what we have seen from the past 2 administrations to try and remove the partisan nature of Supreme Court nominations. Ways to do this would be to have periodic appointments and justices should be appointed for a set term rather than lifetime appointments. These are things that will have more universal support than increasing the membership size of the court.
Biden campaigned that he was in no way in favor of packing the court. Then he starts a commission? Come on, man. This was a signal pure and simple.
A signal for what? That the court needs reform? It does. If in 17 months, democrats lose the senate, Biden won’t be able to fill any SC vacancies going forward. That is a problem. The process has become partisan. It shouldn’t be. That’s the point.
The partisanship of the process is solely up to the Senate. But it wouldn’t be if every President could pack the court when the Senate and Presidency aligned. It started with Bork and has gotten worse since then.
Any proposal to pack the court would be shot down. Any proposal to immediately add 4 justices all appointed by Biden would be laughed at. Any reasonable proposal to increase court size would phase in new justices over a period of several congressional and presidential terms.
Ummm, that would actually increase partisanship.
You need to read your US history.
House 2 years.
President 4 years.
Senators 6 years.
Justices life.
I.e., right now, only the appointments are partisan.
Once appointed, the Justices have no loyalty.
E.g., Kavanaugh has heavily sided with the Progressives so far, and when he doesn't, it's not because he doesn't agree with them, but because he's a strict 'separation of powers' Constitutionalist.
Yes, Kavanaugh is about as close as a true blood Libertarian the Court has right now. He's gone against most GOP desires from the get-go, and the only time he sided with the GOP, was because while he disagreed with the GOP, he thought it wasn't a decision for the Court.
Everyone will be shocked at his rulings if there's ever a Roe v. Wade like case. E.g., He actually ruled against the 'Abortion Inducing Drugs' argument, despite Kamala Harris mis-quoting him (he was quoting the plantiff before ruling against them).
The Court is designed to be 'untouchable' for a reason.
Of course people want more 'direct power over the court.'
We already know. That's why abortion clinics that are strategically placed in the vicinity of that group of women is a really wise move. That group of women should not reproduce because it's a burden they can't bear.
Oh boy, Roe v. Wade. I'm just tired of anyone being for the government telling anyone what they can do with their bodies.
The only time I 'perched up' is when the gov't of Virginia talked about what women can do with babies once they were out of their bodies!
I.e., the left were literally going to cause Roe v. Wade to be undone with that!
The only time I 'perched up' is when the gov't of Virginia talked about what women can do with babies once they were out of their bodies!
I.e., the left were literally going to cause Roe v. Wade to be undone with that!
I did. Right now too many states, and their large metropolitan areas, are discriminating against Religious organizations, and the Progressive Justices are having none of it.
First it was Colorado.
Now it's Pennsylvania.
A gov't cannot discriminate against the desires of one organization, when it allows such by another. That's where they screwed up here.
And in that overlap a lot of that group also preaches avoiding the issue altogether by waiting until you’re in a legally committed marriage until you engage in a reproductive act. I mean, since we’re all not just animals that are unable to control our base urges and all.
Still doesn't give the government the right to tell anyone what to do with their bodies.
I know the [future] child is innocent. But that doesn't mean we should trust the government more than women. I trust individual women more than the government. The government works on the whim of you, the taxpayer ... and I don't trust you as a mob.
There is only one thing I agree with the right-wing on, and that's harvesting for stem cells.
Because it's already been put forth, multiple times, that the government should reward women for having abortions. That's not a joke. It's a pre-existing industry.
Heck, when I worked at the US Census, I didn't like the conflict-of-interest in the taxpayer making money on selling Geodetic information to Apple, Google and others.
They have some of Red Hat's largest, publicly known compute and storage clusters.
Guys ... you wonder why I'm asking you, the voter, to think intelligently about things. Maybe it's because I've seen what 'lack of caring' is resulting in? You, the voter, have the power.
I'm not asking you guys to circumvent national security, and those empowered with such trust believe in never doing so either. It's not the policy of someone in a cube in a remote office to do such.
But you, the voter, can hold both parties accountable.
Yep, Rush almost single-handedly ruined what is a resounding success that should be a model for all the world.
Health Insurance Coverage Eight Years After the ACA
The 2018 Commonwealth Fund Biennial Survey, taking a big-picture look at health insurance coverage in America eight years after passage of the Affordable Care Act, finds that the uninsured rate among adults ages 19 to 64 for 2018 was 12.4 percent, statistically unchanged from 2016 — despite...
The model for the world is the model that the rest of the world uses. The ACA was never going to be that.Yep, Rush almost single-handedly ruined what is a resounding success that should be a model for all the world.
Health Insurance Coverage Eight Years After the ACA
The 2018 Commonwealth Fund Biennial Survey, taking a big-picture look at health insurance coverage in America eight years after passage of the Affordable Care Act, finds that the uninsured rate among adults ages 19 to 64 for 2018 was 12.4 percent, statistically unchanged from 2016 — despite...www.commonwealthfund.org
Which model is that? Canada/UK? Germany? South Korea? China? Australia?
Latest posts
-
-
-
UCF fb -2.5 pt favorite over WVU (opening line on DraftKings)- Latest: Knightwalker94
