Octopus Overlords

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.

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.

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.

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.

Skinypupy wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:25 pm

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

according to Catholic faith we're all sinners

LordMortis wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:43 pm

according to Catholic faith we're all sinners

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?

El Guapo wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:50 pm ‘Amy Covid Barrett’ Discovers How Nicknames Actually Work

I enjoyed this quite a bit.

Justice Karen

El Guapo wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:50 pm ‘Amy Covid Barrett’ Discovers How Nicknames Actually Work

I enjoyed this quite a bit.

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.

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.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:40 pm

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.

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.

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.

Defiant wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:43 pm If credible claims of sexual assault were uncovered, as happened with Kavanaugh, then I would hope they would bring it up.

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:29 pm Democrats to focus on issues, not character, at Barrett hearings.

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.

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.

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:50 pm

Defiant wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:43 pm If 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.

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.

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:01 pmYeah totally. Only a month later the Republicans got smashed to a pulp at the polls.

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:08 pm

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.

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:16 pmBut yeah it was because of Kavanaugh.

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.

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:19 pm

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.