Onion would have a better ratio
1 Like
Thom Tillis: Medicare for all could mean Medicare for none!
I hear this a lot from the R’s. WTF does it mean?
The Cliffs version: “There’s no fking way we’re allowing a few more dollars in that Medicare tax line in peoples’ paychecks so the system won’t be funded and therefore will collapse.”
Universal health care is doomed to fail in the US as it has in every other country that has tried it. Did you know that Canada has literally no health care? Its true, I saw it on Facebook.
7 Likes
Very interesting that they decided to stop at the number 88
They have to wait like 4 years to see their doctor or something.
pretty good non-partisan branch of gov’t you got there
2 Likes
She can’t give a direct answer to peaceful transfer of power lol.
1 Like
She looks a lot like Foxy Knoxy only significantly older and crazier.
2 Likes
Could really use an originalist on the court to ensure the census is carried our properly according to the constitution!
2 Likes
i did get a chuckle out of kennedy calling barrett rosemary’s baby by saying something to the effect of, “you might be called ‘rosemary’s baby’ by the end of this process. i sincerely hope not, but you might”.
lol.
Been so focused on the court getting worse I almost forgot how fking abjectly terrible it already is
1 Like
I’ve been thinking about what an actually effective line of questioning would be, especially in light of today’s total failure.
I think it involves the classic trial lawyer approach of getting her to agree to a bunch of totally uncontroversial principles then slamming her with her own words. Maybe Trump’s too.
“Do you think it’s important for judges to have empathy?”
“Do you think rich people should receive better health care than poor people?”
“Do you think gay Americans deserve the equal protection of the laws?”
Etc etc etc. Since Trump is so egregious I’d just read his words to her and let her squirm. It’s crucial to maintain thinly veiled disgust throughout.
1 Like
i am sort of hopeful that this is just going to be an impetus for some hilarious $$$ allocation under biden’s first budget, and house/senate will pass a law to conduct a new census. there’s nothing in the constitution that says no additional censes.
also you should halt your pony early.
1 Like
I was half paying attention but Booker’s questioning hit on this at one point, I believe.
He was asking about the cake-baking bigots and essentially got her to say no, you can’t deny service based on race, and no you can’t deny service based on something else (I forget), and then he said “ok, what about for an interfaith couple?”
And that’s when she pivoted to the boilerplate, “Well, I don’t think this is a road I want to go down. It’s not appropriate to give my opinions on a hypothetical that might be a case before me, blah blah blah?”
And Booker said something to the effect of how it’s interesting she would answer some but not others and how that would be very concerning to groups afraid of having their rights stripped away.
I may have some particulars wrong, but that was the gist.
3 Likes
The “well Brown v. Board of Ed is SUPER precedent because everyone agrees and nobody is challenging it… but Roe/Casey aren’t because well golly, not everyone agrees with those decisions and they are challenging it in court” was another moment that they could’ve capitalized on but didn’t because Klob.
Kamala Harris is up next
so it is a matter of popular opinion of the time? ugh, these fucking textual originalists.