Discussion for article #224754
S’okay. Make them dinosaurs vote against contraception, for god’s sake. Sooner or later they are going to lose an awful lot of votes.
9 Likes
A legislative “fix” is very unlikely to pass because Republicans, who strongly support the ruling, have the votes to filibuster it.
That’s fine. Make 'em vote on it anyway. Make 'em vote on killing more jobs and local infrastructure. More things for D’s to run on come fall.
11 Likes
“A legislative fix is very unlikely to pass because Republicans, who are in the minority, still manage to run the place anyway.”
FIFY
5 Likes
A legislative “fix” is very unlikely to pass because Republicans, who strongly support the ruling, have the votes to filibuster it.
Pass or fail, voting “no” is one of those things that could come back to bite a whole bunch of Republicans firmly in the ass. There are several blue state Republicans up for reelection in 2016 and voting in favor of allowing bosses to make women’s healthcare decisions probably won’t be popular then either. In the meantime, maybe the failure of this legislation will wake up some college kids who’d otherwise planned to day-drink on Election Day.
7 Likes
A legislative “fix” is very unlikely to pass because Republicans, who strongly support the ruling, have the votes to filibuster it.
Exactly how many are those votes again?
If I understand the checks and balances of our government as detailed by the Republican understanding of our Constitution he is what’s going to happen:
The Senate will approve legislation to counteract the Supreme Court ruling, then the House won’t even consider taking a vote on that legislation, and then the Speaker of the House will sue the President for failing to sign the legislation that never passed the House, and then the conservative majority on the Supreme Court will just rule in favor of whatever the Chamber of Commerce wants to happen next.
9 Likes
Good. Make every Senator up for re-election vote for or against contraception, and then do not stop talking about those who will inevitably vote against it. Make them own it.
5 Likes
I’m not sure I understand your question, EG.
It takes 40 votes to block debate in the Senate.
2 Likes
Even if they overcome the GOP filibuster it will be DOA in the House and won’t do anything to undo the bad precedence this ruling sets.
That said, if it can be used to wrong-foot GOP Senators and/or provide openings for Democratic Senate candidates to go after the GOP (and help us GOTV)… all for it.
2 Likes
Why did the Supreme Court’s Catholic Five allow Hobby Lobby to opt out of a legal requirement that doesn’t apply to such companies?
The BC requirement applies only to insurance companies—not corporations, whether “closely-held” or not.
It’s plain that the Justices (irony alert!) were tailoring their decision to fit their preconceived outcome.
2 Likes
40 votes are needed for someone to be able to filibuster? Not more?
No votes are required to begin a filibuster. 60 are required to end it.
2 Likes
Hate to burst your bubble, Sammy:
(In case any doubt lingers, The Dandy Goat is, in fact, a UN-recognized news satire publication — meaning that we are signatories to the 1975 International Satire Convention, stipulating that no more than 72.3 percent of any article or graphic may be considered as factual, while the rest may be certifiable humorous ordure.)
2 Likes
These remedies for the benefit of religious conservatives were created by the rules HHS made to implement Obamacare. It would seem that the same process could revise the rules. In other words it doesn’t take an act of congress, it doesn’t even require an executive order. Maybe just an agreement between HHS and the insurance companies that they will always pay for contraception for anyone covered by any policy they write, because it is in the insurance company’s interest to save money on unwanted pregnancies. Insurance companies could even decide to agree to cover abortions as in their economic interest for similar reasons. Federal dollars can’t be spent on abortions, but private dollars can. If fundies want to be troublesome, don’t give them the opportunity to refuse to sign a form, just make it automatic, and even more distasteful to them than the original rule they raised a stink about.
2 Likes
I thought so but the article final paragraph threw me off.
How about a constitutional amendment saying that corporations, closely held or otherwise, are not people. It would have widespread public support.
1 Like
Then there is the problem of getting the Dems to talk about anything that will fire up their base. They are happier to sit quietly and be stunned, stunned I say when they lose.
I hate to agree with you but I do. So disgusted with the lack of “patent” outrage on the part of the Dems.
Are you seriously saying you didn’t know that it only took 40 wingnut GOPers to prevent legislation from moving forward in the Senate by denying the vote to end debate (aka a filibuster)…?