Little Raven wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:13 pm
Interesting note: I was talking with one of my Republican friends yesterday, and he mentioned that he did not plan on voting this year.
I was....surprised....to put it mildly. My friend is a VERY driven single issue voter. (guns) When I asked him why he was planning on sitting this one out, he said (paraphrased) "I can't stand Trump, and there's only one issue I care about. And with the new Court, I don't think I have to worry about anyone doing an end-run around the 2nd. So why should I waste my time voting?"
Obviously, this is just a single data point from a single anecdote, but I can't help but wonder how unique my friend really is. I don't think the same logic would apply to ALL single issue voters - but hey, every vote stripped away from Republicans helps.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
Huh. It seems that a few weeks ago, (before the death of Ginsburg) Barret participated in a "mock court" exercise at William & Mary Law School. The Court was asked to rule on the Obamacare case currently pending before the SC.
None of the judges ruled in favor of the administration and Republican states’ request to strike down the law.
Five of the judges ruled that one part of the law — the so-called individual mandate, which Congress has already effectively nullified — was unconstitutional, but that the rest of the healthcare law could stay in place. The other three judges would have thrown out the case, arguing that the conservative states challenging the law did not have standing to bring the suit.
It’s not known which side Barrett was on because the participants’ votes were not revealed, according to a person who viewed the session and declined to be identified.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
As the father of three kids via IVF, Sen Duckworth sums up my thoughts well.
An open message to my Republican colleagues:
You stood up. You applauded. You cuddled my beautiful daughter when she became the first infant on the Senate floor.
So now I ask—how could you support a Supreme Court nominee who supports those who believe Maile shouldn't exist?
How could you vote for a nominee who supports those who believe that my doctor should be in prison?
That moms like me who've been blessed with children through IVF shouldn't be criminalized *only* "at this point?”
That these families are worth "less" than others?
To all my Republican colleagues who met my Maile that historic day—I urge you to look within your souls.
Look within & consider whether someone who supports those beliefs is capable of serving as an impartial justice for ALL Americans on the highest court in the land. For life.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
With at least one Senator testing positive (one on the Judiciary committee), I wonder if the whole covid situation will slow down the confirmation process (at least, postpone the vote until after the election)
Little Raven wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:13 pm
Interesting note: I was talking with one of my Republican friends yesterday, and he mentioned that he did not plan on voting this year.
I was....surprised....to put it mildly. My friend is a VERY driven single issue voter. (guns) When I asked him why he was planning on sitting this one out, he said (paraphrased) "I can't stand Trump, and there's only one issue I care about. And with the new Court, I don't think I have to worry about anyone doing an end-run around the 2nd. So why should I waste my time voting?"
Obviously, this is just a single data point from a single anecdote, but I can't help but wonder how unique my friend really is. I don't think the same logic would apply to ALL single issue voters - but hey, every vote stripped away from Republicans helps.
I interact with a lot of 2A single issue voters and this isn't the norm. They feel they their "rights" are under constant attack and one more judge is just one more judge.
They want "constitutional carry", no NFA, etc.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
You stood up. You applauded. You cuddled my beautiful daughter when she became the first infant on the Senate floor.
So now I ask—how could you support a Supreme Court nominee who supports those who believe Maile shouldn't exist?
How could you vote for a nominee who supports those who believe that my doctor should be in prison?
Come on Tammy, you know why. Because they were lying to your face.
Also, there is an anti-IVF movement? And presumably it's aligned with the anti-abortion movement?
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:28 pm
Also, there is an anti-IVF movement? And presumably it's aligned with the anti-abortion movement?
The IVF process involves fertilizing eggs in a Petri dish, letting them develop for 3-5 days, then implanting them in the mother. Any eggs that were fertilized but not implanted are either frozen to thaw out and implant later (all our kids were this sort of “popsicle babies”) or destroyed.
For the “life begins at fertilization” crowd, there is no functional difference between destroying a 5-day-old embryo and aborting a baby at 39 weeks.
They’ve worked hard to destroy IVF options for a long time, without success. That could change with the right level of Jesus making the high court decisions, although I doubt it would ever get that far.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
FWIW, the official Catholic position on IVF is that it is a sin. This isn't because of the termination of unused embryos, but because apparently babies should only be made via sexual intercourse. I think this, like the prohibition on contraceptives, is largely ignored by many Catholics (I didn't even realize it was the official position until the last decade or so). Also, the Catholic Church is very clear that the "sin" of the parents is not passed onto the child. The child resulting from IVF is not in any way tainted by its creation.
ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:34 pm
FWIW, the official Catholic position on IVF is that it is a sin. This isn't because of the termination of unused embryos, but because apparently babies should only be made via sexual intercourse. I think this, like the prohibition on contraceptives, is largely ignored by many Catholics (I didn't even realize it was the official position until the last decade or so). Also, the Catholic Church is very clear that the "sin" of the parents is not passed onto the child. The child resulting from IVF is not in any way tainted by its creation.
Reading nonsense like that makes me particularly angry. I especially loved this part:
So does this mean that the Church essentially teaches that infertile couples cannot share in the great joy that is having children?
This does not mean, however, that the Church is against science in its efforts to help infertile couples. Pope Benedict XVI has said: “The Church pays great attention to the suffering of couples with infertility, she cares for them and, precisely because of this, encourages medical research.” As the Catechism affirms: “Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed “at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.” In other words, the Church is not against medical advancements that would help infertile couples as long as they do not interfere with God’s vision of human sexuality and do not disrespect human life.
For this reason, the Church is an enthusiastic supporter of NaProTECHNOLOGY. This pioneering method, developed by world-renowned gynecologist Dr. Thomas Hilgers, allows physicians to diagnose the causes of fertility and help couples find a time when they can engage in intercourse with the greatest chance of getting pregnant. In fact, NaProTECHNOLOGY is much more effective than in vitro fertilization, not to say much cheaper and safer. To learn more about NaProTECHNOLOGY and find a doctor who will lead you through the process, click here.
Mrs. Skinypupy has a genetic disorder that required her to have 8 major abdominal surgeries before she was 3 years old. The resulting scar tissue from those multiple surgeries essentially destroyed her reproductive system, so the only way we could get pregnant was via IVF. So by all means, please let me know what can NaProTECHNOLOGY do for her so we aren't "sinners".
The fact that they feel the need to spell out that a child isn't automatically condemned because of the way they were conceived is a great reminder for today of why I avoid religion entirely.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
I'm sure they'll get back to clarifying their position on IVF after discussing at length how the miracle drug Trump was given having been created from and using research derived from fetal stem cells is suddenly not a problem.
Smoove_B wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:01 pm
I'm sure they'll get back to clarifying their position on IVF after discussing at length how the miracle drug Trump was given having been created from and using research derived from fetal stem cells is suddenly not a problem.
This point really should be made more everywherely
Hey, I'm not saying I agree with the Church's position (I don't) - just putting it out there. (And FWIW, according to Catholic faith we're all sinners. That's why you, in theory, go to Confession to get absolved for your sins.)
ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:15 pm
Hey, I'm not saying I agree with the Church's position (I don't) - just putting it out there. (And FWIW, according to Catholic faith we're all sinners. That's why you, in theory, go to Confession to get absolved for your sins.)
As a 30+ year recovering Catholic at this point, I had no idea on their position regarding IVF - so I appreciate you sharing it, fwiw. It doesn't surprise me, but I didn't know there was an actual official position on it.
ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:15 pm
Hey, I'm not saying I agree with the Church's position (I don't) - just putting it out there. (And FWIW, according to Catholic faith we're all sinners. That's why you, in theory, go to Confession to get absolved for your sins.)
Sorry, wasn't a dig at you.
More just an attempt to point out the absurdity, from a non-religious person's point of view.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Isn't that all of Christianity? Jesus died for my sins. God loves us so much that he sacrificed his son for our sins. Accepting Jesus to forgive us our sins is the only path to God. Or am I off from what I thought I knew?
Isn't that all of Christianity? Jesus died for my sins. God loves us so much that he sacrificed his son for our sins. Accepting Jesus to forgive us our sins is the only path to God. Or am I off from what I thought I knew?
Yes, but I was focusing on Catholicism since I was talking about the Catholic rationale for the "sinfulness" of IVF. (And Catholicism does the forgiveness thing by the rite of Confession, not simply by "accepting Jesus".)
ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:34 pm
FWIW, the official Catholic position on IVF is that it is a sin. This isn't because of the termination of unused embryos, but because apparently babies should only be made via sexual intercourse. I think this, like the prohibition on contraceptives, is largely ignored by many Catholics (I didn't even realize it was the official position until the last decade or so). Also, the Catholic Church is very clear that the "sin" of the parents is not passed onto the child. The child resulting from IVF is not in any way tainted by its creation.
No more so than the "Original Sin" babies are already born with hence the need to perform a mystical ceremony whereby magic water is poured on their heads so it can seep down and cleanse their souls.
"Don't touch my stuff when I'm dead...it's booytrapped!" - Bender Bending Rodriguez
Skinypupy wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:51 pm
The fact that they feel the need to spell out that a child isn't automatically condemned because of the way they were conceived is a great reminder for today of why I avoid religion entirely.
Not because of the way they were conceived but definitely because of Adam.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Skinypupy wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:51 pm
The fact that they feel the need to spell out that a child isn't automatically condemned because of the way they were conceived is a great reminder for today of why I avoid religion entirely.
Not because of the way they were conceived but definitely because of Adam.
No blame for Eve or the vegetarian talking serpent?
LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:24 pmI interact with a lot of 2A single issue voters and this isn't the norm. They feel they their "rights" are under constant attack and one more judge is just one more judge.
Some of this could be geographical differences.
I live in Texas, as do most of my friends. Texas gun owners are pretty happy with Texas laws and there isn't a imminent fear of those changing - their big worry is national legislation of some sort. I don't have any friends that are quite into "the NFA should not exist" territory...in fact, a couple of them would happily support expanding the NFA to cover ALL semi-automatic weapons...with a couple of trade offs. (a 3 day "fail-open" cutoff on approvals, automation of the application process, that sort of thing)
But you're in Chicago, right? Yeah...I imagine Illinois gun nuts are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
Senate Democrats are carefully mapping out their strategy for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing next week, hoping to avoid the pitfalls of the messy 2018 fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh that energized the GOP base.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has urged his colleagues to focus on “health care, health care, health care” and stay away from attacks on Barrett’s character, Roman Catholic beliefs or qualifications.
I think this is a smart move. There's nothing to be gained by giving Barrett the Kavanaugh treatment.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
It probably is smart as everything we need to know about her character is summarized by her intention to continue with the nomination process with everything else currently unfolding.
Defiant wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:43 pmIf credible claims of sexual assault were uncovered, as happened with Kavanaugh, then I would hope they would bring it up.
Politically, that was a disaster. One the Democrats are not keen to repeat.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
Senate Democrats are carefully mapping out their strategy for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing next week, hoping to avoid the pitfalls of the messy 2018 fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh that energized the GOP base.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has urged his colleagues to focus on “health care, health care, health care” and stay away from attacks on Barrett’s character, Roman Catholic beliefs or qualifications.
I think this is a smart move. There's nothing to be gained by giving Barrett the Kavanaugh treatment.
I'll believe it when I see it, but this is at least a hopeful sign.
In other news, I checked out the link above about the Amy Covid Barrett nickname, which I thought was amusing, until I noticed their mention that Kayleigh McEnany is an Above the Law alum, which surprised me. Then I read her bio:
Kayleigh McEnany is a CNN political commentator. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, and she also studied politics at Oxford University. In addition to writing a column for Above the Law, she is a contributor for The Hill. She can be found on Twitter at @KayleighMcEnany.
WTF??? I have listened to her on CNN too much, and after hearing the inane drivel she spouts endlessly, it's really hard for me to come to grips that she has an educational bio like that.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Defiant wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:43 pmIf credible claims of sexual assault were uncovered, as happened with Kavanaugh, then I would hope they would bring it up.
Politically, that was a disaster. One the Democrats are not keen to repeat.
Yeah totally. Only a month later the Republicans got smashed to a pulp at the polls.
Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:59 pm
Sometimes education changes people for the better, sometimes it just puts more bats in their belfry.
Sometimes you have to really look into how they got there. Everyone thinks its all meritocracy. Sometimes it isn't. Look at the President. That said, I know little about McEnany's background - perhaps she is brilliant when not shilling for a sociopath. It's just a thought that sometimes the pedigree isn't earned.
malchior wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:01 pmYeah totally. Only a month later the Republicans got smashed to a pulp at the polls.
But Joe Donnelly and Claire McCaskill both went down - seats Democrats had high hopes of saving before Kavanaugh.
They both lost by decent margins. Someone might point at Kavanaugh but they'd be wrong. There was much more afoot. Trump won both those states by a decent margin also, so it was almost certainly a deplorable realignment. The Democrats tallied 58 Million votes to about 34 Million with 35 seats on the line and lost 2 seats because it's the Senate.
malchior wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:16 pmBut yeah it was because of Kavanaugh.
I agree with you that there was a lot going on, and pinning anything on one factor is....dubious. But the prevailing political wisdom on the hill is that the Kavanaugh hearings played well in places where Democrats were already winning and very, very badly in places where they need to win. Maybe that would have been worth it if they had succeeded in stopping Kavanaugh from being seated, but since they didn't....I'm not surprised the Schumer is not keen to repeat that performance. Particularly since it's likely to play much worse against Amy.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.
Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:23 pm
The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.
That and it's their constitutional right to do so. The failure of the Democratic party to force Garland through is their fault.
I get it. It sucks. But put the blame where it belongs.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
malchior wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:16 pmBut yeah it was because of Kavanaugh.
I agree with you that there was a lot going on, and pinning anything on one factor is....dubious. But the prevailing political wisdom on the hill is that the Kavanaugh hearings played well in places where Democrats were already winning and very, very badly in places where they need to win. Maybe that would have been worth it if they had succeeded in stopping Kavanaugh from being seated, but since they didn't....I'm not surprised the Schumer is not keen to repeat that performance. Particularly since it's likely to play much worse against Amy.
McCaskill also was doomed most likely no matter what. She didn't get Democratic turn out. Especially black voters. She made Clinton level assumptions there on counting on them to turn out but doing jack shit for them. The polls were -- truly for once -- all wrong. Her voters weren't motivated because she had to be so moderate in a polarizing environment. In fact, she played it very safe on Kavanaugh and that ended up turning off the voters she needed. It might have been CW back contemporaneous to the election that Kavanaugh played but all the in-depth AARs showed that McCaskill lost for many reasons that mostly didn't have to do with him at all.
That said, I don't think PTSD from Kavanaugh is even a significant component in the math. The situation isn't all that comparable to Kavanaugh since the election is far more aligned with Trump. Since the Democrats know it is purely theater their actions with Barrett should only be focused on increasing turnout. Turning an attack on her into Democratic *turnout* is extraordinarily dicey so they probably -- hopefully -- won't try. Meanwhile, Trump is doing their job for them and turning out Democratic voters and dollars to campaigns for Democratic candidates in huge surges -- hence Graham and his sad sniveling. With tight Senate races, the best plan is to keep the focus on Trump to keep driving turnout.
