Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (3 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[superchuck500]

It’s not just the three that are infected is it? There are several others who should be in quarantine for two weeks I thought.

Ron Johnson refused to stay home even though he tested positive - because he "didn't feel sick."

I doubt the concept of a contact-based quarantine matters to them.

 

[DaveXA]

It’s not just the three that are infected is it? There are several others who should be in quarantine for two weeks I thought.

There are other who are quarantined, but haven't tested positive yet. The smart thing would be for all of them to stay quarantined until the 19th, then appear on the Senate floor to form a quorum.

We'll see. I suspect those who tested positive will hope to test negative before the 14 days are up.

 

[wardorican]

Ron Johnson refused to stay home even though he tested positive - because he "didn't feel sick."

I doubt the concept of a contact-based quarantine matters to them.

Update to the story...

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to reflect that Sen. Ron Johnson was still awaiting the results of his COVID-19 test when he attended the Oktoberfest. He says he got the result that he was positive afterward.

 

[MT15]

Even though he didn’t have results yet, he should have stayed home. That’s the protocol at my place of employment. You don’t allow people who are testing to come back to work until they get the result.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Exhibit A that Thomas and Alito are disgusting individuals.

 

[coldseat]

They really are trying to enshrine a theocratic Christian government through judicial edict and by destroying the democratic process at the same time. Truly scary how close they are to their goal.

 

[DaveXA]

They really are trying to enshrine a theocratic Christian government through judicial edict and by destroying the democratic process at the same time. Truly scary how close they are to their goal.

I get why you might say that, but, nah.

 

[Ayo]

And this is why I think the discussion about the Senate not voting with a mind toward how a justice will vote to influence policy is largely academic.

the real world just isn’t working that way.

 

[coldseat]

I get why you might say that, but, nah.

That's exactly what it is.

Conservative justices destroy the voting right's act, allow gerrymandering to continue unabated and allow every dirty political trick that distorts and makes a mockery of the democratic process. Conservative politicians additionally block and refuse to allow changes to our electoral process and law to reflect a more democratic result, thereby ensuring their minority rule with the help of the courts. They additionally send through all of these conservative court challenges to existing law and legal interpretation to overturn already set previous precedence and further enshrine their religious beliefs and texulist/original reductive interpretation of the law as the standard for determination of future court cases. That's how you create a Conservative Christian theocratic government.

I used to think that was a farfetched dream of theirs, but their at the doorstep of accomplishing their desires. I mean, no where in Alito and Thomas's dissent does it ever even talk about basic equality. That is supposed to be a fundamental underpinning of our democratic republic and something that has only expanded as we've developed as a nation and our understanding of equality has evolved. They're forcefully advocating for making a group of citizens unequal to a group other citizens solely based on one segments religious beliefs. I can't think of anything more theocratic than that.

 

[wardorican]

What do you think of his actual argument that is creates a potential issue and that the decision goes too far?

 

[superchuck500]

Submitted without comment.

 

[superchuck500]

What do you think of his actual argument that is creates a potential issue and that the decision goes too far?

While I'm open to the argument that state legislation could serve to give certain activities a religious basis to refuse service to homosexuals, I don't think constitutional equal protection is supposed to be a matter for the legislature - by design, it is one of those areas where the Constitution artfully protects minorities from the (potential) abuses of the majority. I also find the complaint about the language in Justice Roberts's dicta (enabling accusations of bigotry) in Obergefell to be a little curious.

I still don't see, for example, what business the religious views of a clerk of court - a secular civic function - have in determining whether that clerk performs a civil ministerial function of signing a marriage license at the county courthouse. But the timing here is interesting, as the Court appears to be moving toward a solid 6-3 conservative majority - suggesting that Obergefell may be in play.

 

[coldseat]

Submitted without comment.

The way that writer views women is dripping with contempt. Beneath all of that flowery religious bloviation is a real distrust and contempt for women. That type thinking goes right along with my previous post and is what is taught in the majority of christian faiths.

 

[DaveXA]

That's exactly what it is.

Conservative justices destroy the voting right's act, allow gerrymandering to continue unabated and allow every dirty political trick that distorts and makes a mockery of the democratic process. Conservative politicians additionally block and refuse to allow changes to our electoral process and law to reflect a more democratic result, thereby ensuring their minority rule with the help of the courts. They additionally send through all of these conservative court challenges to existing law and legal interpretation to overturn already set previous precedence and further enshrine their religious beliefs and texulist/original reductive interpretation of the law as the standard for determination of future court cases. That's how you create a Conservative Christian theocratic government.

I used to think that was a farfetched dream of theirs, but their at the doorstep of accomplishing their desires. I mean, no where in Alito and Thomas's dissent does it ever even talk about basic equality. That is supposed to be a fundamental underpinning of our democratic republic and something that has only expanded as we've developed as a nation and our understanding of equality has evolved. They're forcefully advocating for making a group of citizens unequal to a group other citizens solely based on one segments religious beliefs. I can't think of anything more theocratic than that.

I'll say a little why I say nah. That 6-3 majority will be short-lived, and I suspect it's why the Republicans have a sense of urgency about this. It's likely that Biden will win this election, and also a good possibility that they'll be in the minority in Congress as well. Of that's the case, they're trying to get this done now before the pendulum swings back the other way. That 6-3 majority won't last long.

Something else to consider. Justices have surprised people with their decisions on occasion. It's happened a few times over the years, and who knows? ACB might do the same thing. We won't know fully until the court starts handing down decisions. I'd argue a wait and see approach here. But that's me.

 

[coldseat]

I'll say a little why I say nah. That 6-3 majority will be short-lived, and I suspect it's why the Republicans have a sense of urgency about this. It's likely that Biden will win this election, and also a good possibility that they'll be in the minority in Congress as well. Of that's the case, they're trying to get this done now before the pendulum swings back the other way. That 6-3 majority won't last long.

Something else to consider. Justices have surprised people with their decisions on occasion. It's happened a few times over the years, and who knows? ACB might do the same thing. We won't know fully until the court starts handing down decisions. I'd argue a wait and see approach here. But that's me.

You have that luxury. "Wait and see" to somebody who's basic fundamental freedoms and liberties are under attack isn't appealing.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'll say a little why I say nah. That 6-3 majority will be short-lived, and I suspect it's why the Republicans have a sense of urgency about this. It's likely that Biden will win this election, and also a good possibility that they'll be in the minority in Congress as well. Of that's the case, they're trying to get this done now before the pendulum swings back the other way. That 6-3 majority won't last long.

Something else to consider. Justices have surprised people with their decisions on occasion. It's happened a few times over the years, and who knows? ACB might do the same thing. We won't know fully until the court starts handing down decisions. I'd argue a wait and see approach here. But that's me.

The problem is that you are arguing a wait and see approach is it applies to basic civil rights.

 

[DaveXA]

You have that luxury. "Wait and see" to somebody who's basic fundamental freedoms and liberties are under attack isn't appealing.

Well, the perception that freedoms and liberties are being attacked is something I'm not really seeing. Cite a case where that's actually happening and I'll give it consideration. Fwiw, there are some conservative justice rulings that I'm not a fan of. Never cared for DOMA or the rulings related to eminent domain. But I am for keeping church and state fully separate. Religious freedom and personal freedom. I don't think there should be a religious test for justices, and if we had a Muslim or Hindu justice, I wouldn't have a problem with it.