Amy Coney Barrett confirmed

Post Reply New Topic

C'mon Bric 1912-1940 is between 80 - 108 years ago. The current political environment and parties are nothing like the way US politics operated back then. It's like comparing apples with oranges.

Between 1910-1930 most US politicians would have been getting political donations from the Klu Klux Klan, it was a completely different (and probably more corrupt) landscape back then where the democrats were the bad guys.

You really need to do some research...Precedent is based on relevent circumstances (as noted in this case: same party in control of Executive and Senate, nomination during election year), with time since it was set having no relevence. Unless you can find a more recent example with these same conditions met, these precedents are what is applicable in the current time.

The other circumstances, which you are now trying to insert, have no relevence to the topic under discussion. While they may provide a background to political events at the time (if accurate, which based on previous experience with the source and the lack of supporting evidence is not a given), that is the maximum extent of their utility.

Given that it was you who introduced the article where these nominations were mentioned, it is intellectually dishonest (though not entirely unexpected) that you now complain when the facts you introduced are shown to not support your desires.

Basically no one in the US cares about supreme court appointments from 100 years ago.

McConnell went shameless hypocrite and reversed his own rules. It's not surprising because McConnell is a hard ball politician through and through. Chuck Schumer would probably do the same if he controlled the senate, but that doesn't make what McConnell did right.

This was the point I was trying to make to Bric, but if it comes from me then it must be intellectually dishonest (shrug!)

I know and I found the argument tiresome.

Nobody's rights are going to be taken away. Gay marriage and abortion will still be legal. If the roles were reversed and we had a democrat president and a democrat Senate, they would be pushing a Supreme Court nominee through. They wouldn't be waiting until after the election. Let's see how Amy Coney Barrett does before we judge her. She is someone who is going to uphold the Constitution. She is more than qualified for the job.

Taking quotes intentionally out of context, then attempting to dance around the inconvenient details which you had neglected\ignored in your source material isn't really trying to make a point though...It more closely resembled a (failing) attempt to justify a partisan delusion against overwhelming evidence\facts\precedent.

As you can see, Antrax's (while unsubstantiated) statement did a much better job of illustrating a point than you have managed thus far with your projection, obfuscation and avoidance of facts being presented throughout the discussion.

marie antoinette-style bs, pre-PPACA they were NOT free to buy it if they don't make enough money to pay for it. access doesn't mean "affordability" in the standard right wing scheme to keep health care only for the wealthy.

The real world rarely aligns itself neatly in accordance with one-liner statements.

The United States of America has the most expensive health care system in the entire world, so a lot of US citizens simply cannot afford to pay for health insurance out-of-pocket.

And prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act - the one you yourself so badly want to repeal - a lot of people simply *couldn't* buy health insurance at all because they were excluded from coverage by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions.

The republican version of health care - if you can't pay for it then let them eat cake....

And the republicans would be yelling bloody murder and be talking about packing the court.

Poor people get free health care, it's called Medicare.

"You can join a Medicare Advantage Plan even if you have a Pre-existing condition "
https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change ... tage-plans

The problem you're discussing is when people don't want to pay for expensive medical insurance, and complain, "I can't afford it".

Basically, only people 65 years old or older get Medicare. Though a few who are under 65 do get Medicare.

Quite a few poor people get MediCAID. But quite a few poor people are not eligble for Medicaid.

My issue with the ACA is that's terrible law.

America is proud to be "land of the free and the home of the brave".

We sing it every professional baseball game.

The government can simply Constitutionally expand Medicare if that is what is needed.

Justifying the ACA, that it's OK to force people to buy government product, just because people are poor, seems like a terrible slippery-slope.

I don't believe in the $600 tax for not having health coverage----that's for sure. That was a problem with Obamacare.

Also: some of the Obamacare plans had very high deductibles and co-pays. And (especially the "bronze" plans) they just weren't very good.

It would be good if there was a basic "Medicare for all."

Something closer to medicare for all is the sort of repeal ACA/Obamacare needs.

Or just actually affordable good insurance.