Star right-wing lawyer Jonathan Mitchell — of Texas bounty-hunter abortion law fame — argued Monday that the recent tendency of conservative justices to stymy government action for the whole country has gone too far.
Conservatism continues to suck the life from this country. It has never brought something positive to the world to help those who need it. Never once.
Why do we call the folks who want to break things, conservatives?
I don’t call them conservatives, and you should also feel free to apply any descriptive terminology you like.
The government’s posture is: Fine. These plaintiffs can be exempted from the requirement — they mostly aren’t even currently in the heath care market (after having left it due to expense and not these idiosyncratic concerns), and may not be able to even find a Texas insurer to sell them the “bespoke plans” they want.
… … … … …
What the heck is a “bespoke plan”?? I thought I understood the English language. But “lawyer-ese” is a language unfamiliar to me. It uses words I know but in ways that remove any meaning I am familiar with.
“We see district judges throughout the United States issuing nationwide injunctions"
Well, those are the conservative’s rules.
Think they’ve noticed all the liberal judges showing up?
Bomb-throwing radicals.
What I believe Mitchell is saying is that universal injunctions should be “available for me but not for thee”.
You mean he would oppose mail order prescriptions anywhere the USPS provides service?
They’re trying to “conserve” tradition (i.e., their privileges).
Voting reserved for white male property owners. A lot of MAGA supporters are going to be very disappointed.
“Living in the basement does not make you a man of property.”
And why are the plaintiffs against free preventive testing? They think a cancer diagnosis is a gift from god?
Seems to be the root of the matter doesn’t it.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
– Frank Wilhoit
Yeah, bespoke mostly just means customized or tailor-made so why not say so?
A question I might have is whether any health insurance company offers anything like that in any positive sense; that is, rather than add-ons it seems more likely the plaintiffs are arguing for plans with coverages removed that they specify, basically ‘customized’ to their hopes they won’t need that coverage (until they do and become liabilities to the emergency system).
No no. This is not “conservativism.” These are Republicans. And the distinction is significant. The former has at least some credibility, assuming conservative really means making change slowly.
On the other hand, “Republican” is synonymous with corruption, radical right-wing ideology and moral bankruptcy.
I’ve survived cancer twice. I prefer knowing early. That’s key. It’s easier to treat if diagnosed early.
I would say this true about Republicans and not conservatives. In fact, I find very little conservative about today’s Republican Party. I mean what is more conservative than keeping government’s hands out of the womb?
To be a Republican you must believe in two sets of morals and standards, one for yourself and another for everyone else. However, what has always been obvious and especially for women, very few are actually in the class of people that gets the more beneficial standards.
The MAGA rank and file is consistent in one thing: they do not actually understand what they want or what it will look like if they get it. Chasing bumper sticker slogans is fun until you have no job, no healthcare, no retirement money and you, if you’re a woman, have no personal privacy or rights. They’ll blame the predicament on liberals, but still, that won’t change where they’re at. When the vodka and opioids run out hopefully they’ll have one bullet left to turn out the lights.
Reed O’Connor is another Kacsmaryk…consistently a go-to for this shell game. Just feels a little weird in the article using the latter as the exemplar when O’Connor is just as much of an exemplar.
And the 5th Circuit is a fucking clown show that needs to be legislatively dissolved and reformed so every single justice on it can be replaced lol
They’re not against cancer screening. They’re against being told they have to do it. It’s kindof two things at once: (1) the ACA is an n-bomb telling people what to do and that is anathema and can never be tolerated and (2) the mandates like this one are part of the cost controls, so targeting and knocking out mandates helps undermine the ACA’s financial stability and cost savings. Early cancer diagnosis can be life saving and save hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills…whereas catching it late often means a mad dash to save the person, throwing expensive shit at the wall to see what sticks, even experimental treatment, and then spending oodles of money on end of life care and hospice if/when it fails. I would bet this was another game of “let’s invent a complaint about an important ACA provision and then go find people willing to be our plaintiffs”.