Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those hearing is becoming basic training for Judge Barrett - it's going on way too long just so the senators, of both parties, can get some screen time. ACB is worn out - should have recessed a couple hours ago.
the longest day of her life i bet. she did so well!! I dont think anyone can say anything ugly about this lovely lady.
135,000,000 now have insurance, because of the aca....kamala harris.....(parahprased)
Everyone who WANTED health insurance had it BEFORE the ACA. The remaining people blew their money on beer and cigarettes instead and didn't finish school. Poor decisions have consequences.
The same Senators who would not give Garland a hearing 10 months before the 2016 election, have no issue with conducting confirmation hearings 3 weeks before the 2020 election. Seriously hoping So Carolina voteS Graham* out.
We are left with Senators on both sides grandstanding, 3 weeks before the election.
We got several D Senators talking about healthcare sob stories vs some R Senators gushing gushing about Barrett as if she is the second coming. Both sides make me throw up in my mouth.
Barrett Has the credentials, is sharp, well coached and apparently unflappable. She likely has far more integrity than Trump and the GOP who have conjoined her appointment with repealing the ACA and Roe v Wade.
The Senate has the majority. Confirm her and move on.
* Graham went on a tangent about the $6000 deductible Obamacare plan. Congress critters get the Gold plan and the Federal Government subsidizes 73% of the premium. The Gold plan in S.C. Is a standard 80/20 plan with a $2000 deductible. It is comparable to plans in place pre ACA for all Federal employers. Graham claimed he switched to Tricare which is an ACA- compliant benefit plan. Obviously he prefers the federal government pay for his healthcare, despite having a very good employer plan.
All discussion of the ACA, pro and con, during this hearing is inappropriate. Barrett did not bite.
Everyone who WANTED health insurance had it BEFORE the ACA. The remaining people blew their money on beer and cigarettes instead and didn't finish school. Poor decisions have consequences.
I'm honestly not understanding where you are going with this response? Are you telling me I'M wrong or right?
Substantive Due Process trumps Procedural Due Process every time, all the time.
Take the 3rd Amendment which bars quartering troops in a person's residence.
So, the government says, well, it's okay, because the homeowner can file a written objection, and then appeal it to a hearing officer and then appeal that decision before an administrative law judge and then appeal that to the federal district court.
That is procedural due process.
Substantive due process says there can be no procedural due process because quartering troops in someone's residence violates a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution (or more correctly, the Bill of Rights).
The problem here is that the prohibition against quartering troops in a person's residence is actually enumerated in the Constitution. The right to privacy is not and relies on the constitutional fiction of substantive due process to sustain it. And, note, even with the 3rd Amendment, the prohibition against quartering troops in someone's home is not absolute and the amendment specifically authorizes it in a time of war in a manner prescribed by law. Prohibiting the government from quartering troops in your home during peace time isn't an exercise of substantive due process, but of reading the Constitution exactly as it is written.
This attempt by the courts to distinguish due process into procedural vs. substantive has zero basis in the Constitution, no matter how good some think the idea is. The Constitution is clear that your right to life, liberty, and property can be deprived after due process considerations are undertaken. Amy Coney Barrett seems to get this, as did Justice Scalia and as does Justice Thomas.
Ok, missed a lot in the afternoon session, thank you youtube, caught Whitehouse so far, he was teaching a class, um ok,
and Ted and made it thru 40 sec of Amy Klob - sorry, I couldn't watch any more of her and I'm mainly a Dem.
Ted and Amy CB are the smartest people in the room to me, so far.
I have Kamala left...and Lee to catch.
I had a Catholic Dem text me that he really like Amy CB...I said, me too!
(Oh, I was very surprised learning from Ted that this 'banning a book against a political fig' was 5-4 ---
4 thought it was ok to ban the book....what?)
Glad the Judge showed her superior qualities and handled Harris!
My phone cut out just as Harris was asking ACB how long after she wrote her opinion of Justice Robert's majority opinion on the ACA did Trump contact her.
What did she say?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
