DanteGabriel Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 1 minute ago, Swordfish said: Ha. Nothing could be simpler: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22971620/inaccurate-remarks-gun-magazines-put-rep-diana-degette Those comments were pretty stupid. It's still something different when one dumb lawmaker says stupid things and gets called out on it, on an issue where there hasn't been any political will to do anything, than when it's three Supreme Court justices about to decide a law that revokes contraceptive access from millions of American women because they think that there is an alternative means of getting access to health control that does not actually exist. I don't think one stupid lawmaker invalidates the point of the whole gun control movement, especially since your access to guns does not seem to be under any kind of nationwide legislative deliberation, but a fundamental misunderstanding by Supreme Court Justices on a case with very real and immediate ramifications for women's health care is pretty scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 6 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Those comments were pretty stupid. It's still something different when one dumb lawmaker says stupid things and gets called out on it, on an issue where there hasn't been any political will to do anything, than when it's three Supreme Court justices about to decide a law that revokes contraceptive access from millions of American women because they think that there is an alternative means of getting access to health control that does not actually exist. I'm not trying to draw equivalence between the two issues. I'm drawing equivalence between the root of the concern you are raising. That's hardly the only example of the people introducing and pushing gun regulation demonstrating that they know nothing about the topic at hand. As you, correctly, point out, this phenomenon is a real problem. Quote I don't think one stupid lawmaker invalidates the point of the whole gun control movement, I never said it did. And she's hardly the only one. Nevertheless, she is the one introducing and pushing for this legislation. Quote but a fundamental misunderstanding by Supreme Court Justices on a case with very real and immediate ramifications for women's health care is pretty scary. Of course. I agree with your concern here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 17 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Guns, health insurance, contraceptive coverage. no one without an intricate understanding of these topics should be dictating their access and use to the rest of us. Yeah then you'd literally never get anything done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 3 minutes ago, Swordfish said: That's hardly the only example of the people introducing and pushing gun regulation prove that they know nothing about the topic at hand. I think Congresspeople draft laws about all sorts of things that they have no fucking clue about (hi, climate change!), so maybe if we want to talk about equivalencies, you could find some Supreme Court deliberations on gun control that reveal fundamental ignorance in the way that Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy think women can just go to the birth control insurance exchanges that they think exist under Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Just now, Tywin et al. said: Yeah then you'd literally never get anything done. Nonsensical. lots of people know lots of things about all three of these topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: I think Congresspeople draft laws about all sorts of things that they have no fucking clue about (hi, climate change!), so maybe if we want to talk about equivalencies, you could find some Supreme Court deliberations on gun control that reveal fundamental ignorance in the way that Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy think women can just go to the birth control insurance exchanges that they think exist under Obamacare. Ha. Why would I? The concern is pretty clear. You just admitted that it happens all the time, so i'm not sure what else there is for me to prove. Like I said, this is all pretty self evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 14 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Nonsensical. lots of people know lots of things about all three of these topics. Why does the list stop at 3? The nature of your argument is that legislators shouldn't take action on issues they're not highly informed about. It's idealistic, but not practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: Why does the list stop at 3? The nature of your argument is that legislators shouldn't take action on issues they're not highly informed about. It's idealistic, but not practical. We can't expect people in Congress to know about everything they pass laws on, and in some cases, especially, say, the Republicans on Science committees, they may actually actively scorn information. That's what they have policy staff for, or, very commonly, just let ALEC or other lobbying groups write the legislation. Which is why I think lawmaker ignorance about laws that are (theoretically) subject to debate is a lot less scary than Supreme Court Justices' ignorance about the alternatives to the health care coverage they seem to be on the verge of revoking from any woman unfortunate enough to work for an employer who thinks birth control is for sluts. Especially when these justices seem to ignore correction from their female colleagues sitting next to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 9 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: We can't expect people in Congress to know about everything they pass laws on, and in some cases, especially, say, the Republicans on Science committees, they may actually actively scorn information. That's what they have policy staff for, or, very commonly, just let ALEC or other lobbying groups write the legislation. Which is why I think lawmaker ignorance about laws that are (theoretically) subject to debate is a lot less scary than Supreme Court Justices' ignorance about the alternatives to the health care coverage they seem to be on the verge of revoking from any woman unfortunate enough to work for an employer who thinks birth control is for sluts. Especially when these justices seem to ignore correction from their female colleagues sitting next to them. You do realize you're talking to someone whose worked in legislatures before? The best you can hope for is that any given legislator actually studies the legislation, pays attention in committee hearings and seeks out independent experts to build as good an understanding as they can on a particular subject. Some do, some don't. As to your second paragraph, I would argue that having a strong command of legal theory is more important, but a justice also needs to have the intellectual curiosity to be willing to study up on issues they don't really understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Just now, Tywin et al. said: You do realize you're talking to someone whose worked in legislatures before? The best you can hope for is that any given legislator actually studies the legislation, pays attention in committee hearings and seeks out independent experts to build as good an understanding as they can on a particular subject. Some do, some don't. As to your second paragraph, I would argue that having a strong command of legal theory is more important, but a justice also needs to have the intellectual curiosity to be willing to study up on issues they don't really understand. I was, of course, quoting you to elaborate upon something you said, and addressing my comments to people in general and partially to Swordfish, but sorry if it came across like I was lecturing you about legislative staffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Why does the list stop at 3? The nature of your argument is that legislators shouldn't take action on issues they're not highly informed about. It's idealistic, but not practical. Because those are the three things we are talking about. Look at the example I posted. This congressperson has been pushing this legislation for ten years, it's a high profile issue for her. And yet she lacks even the basic understanding of the specific issue she's taken on as her per project for a decade. An understanding I could teach to an eight year old in ten minutes. That's neither idealistic nor impractical. That's basic competence about an issue you have taken on as your personal crusade. Quote Which is why I think lawmaker ignorance about laws that are (theoretically) subject to debate is a lot less scary than Supreme Court Justices' ignorance about the alternatives to the health care coverage they seem to be on the verge of revoking from any woman unfortunate enough to work for an employer who thinks birth control is for sluts. Especially when these justices seem to ignore correction from their female colleagues sitting next to them. Why? is not the potential result still the possible revocation of the same rights? No matter who writes the legislation, it's still the congresspeople who vote on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 25 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: I was, of course, quoting you to elaborate upon something you said, and addressing my comments to people in general and partially to Swordfish, but sorry if it came across like I was lecturing you about legislative staffs. No need to apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jerry-moran-supreme-court-merrick-garland-nomination-hearing-221213 GOP Sen. Moran breaks with McConnell on Supreme Court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 15 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jerry-moran-supreme-court-merrick-garland-nomination-hearing-221213 GOP Sen. Moran breaks with McConnell on Supreme Court He's up for re-election right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Quote He's up for re-election right? Looks that way. I didn't think he was under much threat though, which is why I find this a bit weird. After all their terrible Governor with all those revenue problems survived reelection. Might be an important crack in the wall of obstruction. In 2014 he served as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/biography Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 \http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jerry-moran-merrick-garland-tea-party-221233 \ Tea party group threatens to primary Moran over Supreme Court comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 24 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: \http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jerry-moran-merrick-garland-tea-party-221233 \ Tea party group threatens to primary Moran over Supreme Court comments Seeing as it is going so well in the Republican primaries so far.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/03/28/georgia-governor-to-veto-religious-freedom-bill.html Georgia Governor Vetoes Anti-Gay ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Actually I was suspecting he'd do that because he spoke against an early version of the bill a few weeks ago. But I'm very glad he followed through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 The supreme court punted 4-4 on the CA teacher's union case. Those tricksy conservatives, wanting to use free riders to sabotage the sanctity of contracts. Whoopsy, didn't work out this time. Maybe we only get a year before Conservatives rape them some contracts, or maybe a bad precedent continues to endure protecting contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.