Holding an elected official to account for his activities is not “trying to overthrow a duly elected president.” That’s like saying that if someone is caught cheating in a college class and is thrown out of school, that is overturning that person’s acceptance into that college.
Despite desperate searching for any credible evidence to support their baseless claims of fraud, which are solely based on their candidate not having won, the Trump campaign has yet to find any evidence that will hold up in court. When directly asked under oath in some of the 39 cases they’ve lost so far out of 40, Trump lawyers have had to admit that they were not alleging fraud, and that despite claiming that no Republican poll watchers were allowed in a room, there were “non-zero” watchers actually there.
The President of the United States is blatantly lying to American citizens and undermining faith in the electoral process because he’s an egotistical, delusional, whiny sore loser. The fact that the GOP leadership has not spoken out against his using his office and making videos from the White House with these baseless accusations means they too are guilty of malicious unpatriotic sedition solely to serve their own ends: fundraising from Trump’s gullible base, gaining their support against the evil Democrats, and furthering false claims about voter fraud so they can disenfranchise working people and minorities.
The “lives lost” from Citizens United is theoretical and longer term – even were this to be reversed by SCOTUS (unlikely but desirable), you also would need a combination of legislative will and a Democratic majority in both houses to take advantage of its reversal and push through controversial changes for health care, higher minimum wage, etc. In contrast, the lives lost from making abortion illegal and gun violence are direct and measurable: those items directly cause the loss of life. It’s pretty appalling to me that you put them in second place to a theoretical political issue.
That wording makes a big difference! And I agree that it’s crucial to litigate Citizens United, but I wouldn’t put it above Roe v Wade or the Second Amendment, which literally affect whether people live or die.
I see… So your contention is essentially that as long as there is no actual rule against something, it doesn’t matter that it’s ethically wrong, blatantly hypocritical, and shows that the word of the Congressional leadership is worthless (“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."), and we have no real grounds for bothering to point it out or blame them for it.
This wasn’t a matter of rules: there’s no rule that says a nominee can’t be proposed and voted on late in a President’s term. This was a matter of blatant and unashamed hypocrisy on the part of the Senate Majority Leader and the GOP. They went from arguing that eight months before an election was too soon to propose or vote on a candidate because the American people should get the chance to decide on the President who should fill the vacancy to proposing and voting on a nominee while an election was already taking place!!!
First, Barrett is far from being qualified for the job: She served as a judge for only two years, never tried a case, never argued an appeal, never argued before the Supreme Court, and primarily worked civil cases and not criminal cases. Second, the “Dems” did not make fun of her religion: the Republicans just pushed that lie. Both Pelosi and Biden are Catholics so that whole anti-Catholic talking point was ridiculous. The only way her religion came up was due to her own statements about her religion influencing her decisions. Finally, even if we didn’t know her political leanings before, she put them on display by agreeing to take part in this hypocritical and corrupt rushed process to begin with. The Speaker himself admitted this appointment was intended to make sure that the GOP’s right-wing agenda would be supported even after they were thrown out of office.
I have no problem with a justice with a known religious affiliation: the majority of Americans have one still. The question is whether a justice’s decisions or approach to the law have been, or there is a reasonable basis for thinking they might be, strongly influenced by their particular religion’s beliefs.
There are plenty of reasons to object to Amy Coney Barrett replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court even besides her religious beliefs possibly influencing her decisions: ACA: She’s repeatedly signaled that she would support lawsuits to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Roe vs Wade: The reason she is the GOP candidate is because she has clearly signaled that she will overturn this decision when given the chance. She has spoken several times before anti-choice groups and has refused to consider it settled law. Workers rights: She has a troubling track record of siding with companies that engage in discrimination. Gun safety: Last year, she dissented from a decision upholding a longstanding federal law that banned people who had been convicted of felonies from possessing firearms. Immigrant justice: Barrett has repeatedly ruled against the rights of immigrants, siding with the Trump administration on its public charge rule and repeatedly voting for overly harsh interpretations of immigration law. LGBTQ+ rights: She has defended the Supreme Court’s dissenters on the landmark marriage equality caseof Obergefell v. Hodges, referring to a transgender women as “physiological males," and addressed a legal group affiliated with Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that advocates have called “arguably the most extreme anti-LGBT legal organization in the United States.”
Similarly :→ https://bigeyedeer.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/graf.gif
Chief Narcissist Trump has not mentioned his wife, or expressed sympathy or even curiosity about the health of his political associates. And yet right-wingers are loudly outraged that everyone did not immediately express tearful sympathy and prayers for his recovery. Patriotism does not require sympathy for Trump in the current situation. It is not unpatriotic to note that Trump has (a) never expressed any genuine sympathy (perhaps a maximum of 2 – 3 brief throwaway statements almost certainly insisted on by his staff) to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose deaths were directly attributable to his deliberate downplaying of the seriousness of the virus, refusal to take early actions that would have helped the US handle the pandemic appropriately, and mockery of public health precautions that would help limit its spread as late as the debate, and (b) his infection is due to the politicization of those precautions and to the fact that he, his family, his inner circle, and his campaign refused to wear masks or establish social distancing at events for themselves or for his audience.