Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on December 12, 2018, 09:51:41 AM
-
https://www.wnd.com/2018/12/the-kavanaugh-betrayal/
Some people are not happy. I'm with the author -- I didn't think Kavanaugh was the best choice. In fact, I didn't think he belonged in the top five. Let's hope he's less squishy when it comes to the Second Amendment.
-
I think most conservatives looked at Kavanaugh as borderline but "better than the alternative" when he was first nominated. Then when everything went down, I think we hoped he saw what liberals were and would maybe head a bit more to the right.
I guess he didn't, so much. I too await his first vote on a 2nd Amendment issue.
I still say Amy Barrett would have been the better choice (I realize a lot of people here don't seem to like her), but maybe she'll be the Ginsburg replacement.
-
Even if one man could fix the system Trump probably isn’t that man.
Many on the dissident right are apt to say “we’re not going to be able to vote our way out of our problems”.
I’m afraid they’re correct.
The frog has been in the pot too long, I think it’s frog soup.
-
I used to read WND years ago... before I figured out it was full of falsehoods.
-
I used to read WND years ago... before I figured out it was full of falsehoods.
So Roberts and Kavanaugh didn’t side with the Marxists on the court in declining to hear the cases that could potentially unfund planned parenthood?
Too bad there wasn’t a word we could use to describe so-called conservatives who submit to the progressive narrative with no shame.
-
That was a lot of WND words to not say much, so I had to Google WTF they were talking about.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rejects-review-of-medicaid-funding-for-planned-parenthood
-
First, that article on WND is long on hyperbole and short on facts.
Second, I agree with the SCOTUS decision to allow the lower court rulings to stand. As the Medicaid law is written, the individual state may not pick and chose which healthcare provider they will pay for services. The state must remail neutral while following the law.
Whether Planned Parenthood uses the Medicaid or tax money to fund/support/prop-up their abortion efforts is irrelevant in this case. Yes, the argument can be made that that is exactly what PP is doing, but this SCOTUS case was not about that.
Sorry, but Kavanaugh, et al, interpreted the law correctly, in my layman's opinion.
-
First, that article on WND is long on hyperbole and short on facts.
Second, I agree with the SCOTUS decision to allow the lower court rulings to stand. As the Medicaid law is written, the individual state may not pick and chose which healthcare provider they will pay for services. The state must remail neutral while following the law.
Whether Planned Parenthood uses the Medicaid or tax money to fund/support/prop-up their abortion efforts is irrelevant in this case. Yes, the argument can be made that that is exactly what PP is doing, but this SCOTUS case was not about that.
Sorry, but Kavanaugh, et al, interpreted the law correctly, in my layman's opinion.
That sound is the ratchet clanking left.
-
I still say Amy Barrett would have been the better choice (I realize a lot of people here don't seem to like her), but maybe she'll be the Ginsburg replacement.
She probably has necromancers on contract to avoid having Trump nominate a replacement for her if necessary just for this reason.
Back when Trump was elected, I got into the actuarial tables for her sex and age, she's over 80% likely to make it through at least Trump's first term.
-
She probably has necromancers on contract to avoid having Trump nominate a replacement for her if necessary just for this reason.
Back when Trump was elected, I got into the actuarial tables for her sex and age, she's over 80% likely to make it through at least Trump's first term.
Yup, I'll bet real money that she makes it through Trump's first term. Anything can happen, but odds are she'll make it through in good health.
If Trump gets a second term, I'm gonna lean the other way and say she'll leave for health reasons, whether she wants to or not. If a Dem gets in for 2020, I'll bet that she retires within the first year, as long as there is a somewhat balanced senate, or one leaning dem.
-
But, but, but, Kavanaugh was supposed to overturn Roe v. Wade and usher in the era of The Handmaiden's Tale.
I was promised that, dammit !!!
-
This case doesn't much look like it has much to do with abortion.
Hopefully, Kavanaugh will rule correctly when it counts.
-
This case doesn't much look like it has much to do with abortion.
Hopefully, Kavanaugh will rule correctly when it counts.
Republicans need to control both houses of Congress then they will get some stuff done ... heh
Tomorrow, tomorrow, there’s always tomorrow, it’s only a day a way ...
-
Republicans need to control both houses of Congress then they will get some stuff done ... heh
Yeah, that worked really well the last two years ...
-
This case doesn't much look like it has much to do with abortion.
Hopefully, Kavanaugh will rule correctly when it counts.
Indeed, it doesn't.
Basically, Planned Parenthood went and jumped through all the hoops to become a Medicaid provider.* Due to the hoopla about baby fetuses, which hasn't been criminally investigated, much less charged, a number of states attempted to deny PP medicaid payments for services it provides. Without a conviction, this amounts to ex post facto law, which is specifically banned in the constitution, and not even in the bill of rights.
Basically, it's about the states/feds paying their bills when they're supposed to by color of law. Zero about abortion if you're a constitutionalist. And if you're a constitutionalist you shouldn't be making decisions about constitutional matters solely in order to hit a single company, PP or not. Because remember, you're setting precedent. If made to slam PP, suddenly states could start denying payment to businesses willy-nilly.
Perhaps ironically, because PP is often the lowest cost/most available source** of birth control for people, denied funding the unintended pregnancy rate would likely rise and increase the number of abortions. Not to mention the number of children in "the system", taking up gobs of additional money. I remember that coming up when Texas defunded some program "to save money" and the auditors came back with "Yeah, about that, it's going to start costing us an extra $300M/year within 3 years".
Not to mention the extra expenses due to delayed treatment for various other conditions, prenatal care, etc...
*Note: Medicaid doesn't pay for abortions short of life of the mother. Not even health is technically enough. Your pregnancy going to make you a diabetic or cost you a leg? Sorry, pay for your abortion yourself. I'm not a professional, this is just what I read. I'm pretty sure that "most" doctors would allow that diabetes/losing a limb is traumatic enough to be at significant risk for death, but...
**I know condoms are cheap, but free is hard to beat, and having a backup for this stuff isn't bad.
-
It’s looking pretty grim then.
We can’t vote ourselves out of our problems as we have seen, at least so far. The left has captured the “law” so us good “law and order conservatives” will follow and support the lefts agenda of finalizing the destruction of the constitutional republic, all under color of law.
Us high trust, rule following, non violent lovers of liberty are getting our asses beat by both the Dems and Republicans.
Truly we live in clown world.