TF Guy! You know what it means

Of course Ron Johnson is going to be that effing guy.

www.usatoday.com

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson forces Senate to read all 628 pages of Biden's COVID bill aloud

Johnson said his tactic was about “educating” the American public on what was in the $1.9 trillion package. The entire process could take 10 hours.
www.usatoday.com

When Johnson demanded a full reading of the 600+ page bill, Chuck Schumer shouldn’t have let that duty fall to a lowly Senate clerk. He should’ve said, “Okay, Ron. Have at it. Hope you brought your throat lozenges.”
 
Thomas Veil said:
Of course Ron Johnson is going to be that effing guy.

www.usatoday.com

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson forces Senate to read all 628 pages of Biden's COVID bill aloud

Johnson said his tactic was about “educating” the American public on what was in the $1.9 trillion package. The entire process could take 10 hours.
www.usatoday.com

When Johnson demanded a full reading of the 600+ page bill, Chuck Schumer shouldn’t have let that duty fall to a lowly Senate clerk. He should’ve said, “Okay, Ron. Have at it. Hope you brought your throat lozenges.”
Click to expand...
What a piece of garbage. They are really throwing tantrums still over losing.
 
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1367925174218145796/

www.azcentral.com

Grant people a living $15-an-hour wage? Sen. Kyrsten Sinema would rather they eat cake

Forget the $15-an-hour minimum wage or immigration and election reform. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema apparently wants the little people to eat cake instead.
www.azcentral.com
Click to expand...
The only thing Sen. Kyrsten Sinema wants to give Arizonans and the nation is “cake.”

Forget the $15-an-hour wage or clearing the way for immigration and election reform. Sinema apparently just wants the little people to eat cake.

She literally carried a cake to the Senate when she voted against Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal to keep the $15-an-hour wage hike in the $1.9 billion COVID-19 relief plan. Her spokesperson later said Sinema brought the cake for Senate staffers who had been working through the night.

That changes nothing, symbolically.

The once-progressive lawmaker has once again made it abundantly clear that she won’t muzzle her power to help the working poor and others who put their faith in her.
Click to expand...
 
You know, you’ve gotta admire a guy with principles.

thehill.com

Van Drew, after flipping parties, bashes bills he once backed

For Rep. Jeff Van Drew (N.J.), swapping party allegiances has also meant reversing course on the top issues moving through Congress.The second-term Republican, who left the Democratic Party last ye…
thehill.com thehill.com

For Rep. Jeff Van Drew (N.J.), swapping party allegiances has also meant reversing course on the top issues moving through Congress.
Click to expand...
The second-term Republican, who left the Democratic Party last year to protest the first impeachment of former President Trump, had supported every one of the Democrats' top nine legislative priorities in the last Congress, most of them before he jumped to the GOP. That list featured some of the more controversial issues Congress considers, including gun reform, climate change, immigration and equal pay between the genders.
Click to expand...
...In the early weeks of the new Congress, Van Drew has already voted against two of those nine proposals, opposing bills expanding gay rights and overhauling the campaign finance system. And he's hinting he'll also switch his position on other bills to come.
Click to expand...
 
JayMysteri0 said:
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... Wha?
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1369677942511566848/

NO exceptions? Incest and/or rape. NONE.

Whadafuq are you trying to tell us Arkansas?! 🤨
Click to expand...

Consider it just a throw-down, it could have said anything as long as it would involve the rulings on Roe or Casey if it starts to wend its way through the court system, which is inevitable. This bill is extreme exactly because it gets more air time and is bound to be taken to court faster. The more restrictive the state bill, the more quickly it is viewed as possibly in violation of the key "undue burden" ruling in the 1992 Casey ruling.

In a way challenging either Roe or Casey at this time is pretty stupid because the Ds will kill the filibuster for sure if Roe gets tossed and Congress finally decides to legislate a federal abortion access law. Hutchinson's intent to get a "let's kill Roe" challenge flies in the face of the fact that a majority of Americans support a right --with some restrictions-- to safe abortion access. Even the Casey ruling stipulated that restrictions must not impose "undue burden" on the woman. And that alone is resulting in pressure on states that have so far managed to reduce access in some cases to a single abortion-providing clinic in the state.

There was an op ed in The Hill in May of 2019 that assembled some stats on public opinion including the fact that some conservative Senators saw value in protecting the right to abortion with certain restrictions. After all, if state laws make it virtually impossible to acquire a safe termination of pregancy for whatever reason, back alley options remain the perennial "choice" -- with the accompanying much higher risks of injury or death. Since any woman able to reproduce can end up inconveniently (or cruelly) pregnant, or pregnant with unforeseen medical complications, those situations could of course include a legislator's wife, daughter, girlfriend, mistress or one-night stand... despite legislators' wishful thinking or outright denial of such possibility.

thehill.com

A federal abortion law might be needed

We need to ensure future access for safe abortions for girls and women across the U.S.
thehill.com thehill.com

All of this is to say, people who support equal access to safe abortion care across the nation could do better than rely on the Supreme Court, especially with its new conservative majority.

But conservatives might also see merit in a federal law protecting safe access, or at least a few key Senators might.

For decades, conservative lawmakers could advocate hard-line policies knowing the Supreme Court would block the most extreme proposals. Some sincerely believed their positions. Others have just been posturing, like former Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), exposed for asking a woman with whom he’d had an extramarital affair to get an abortion.

But the new Court majority may force a rethinking for Congressional conservatives as well. Some state legislatures are passing extreme abortion laws, like the recent slate of “fetal heartbeat” laws which would essentially ban abortions 4 weeks post-conception. If such laws are allowed to stand, federal lawmakers will find it difficult to face their constituents when abortions go underground and become dangerous for family and friends.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top