I wish. But it's kind of unlikely that the Democrats can take the Senate. And if they do, they won't have a supermajority, which I think you need to impeach a judge.
If we win the senate it will be by the skin of our teeth.
Abortion on the ballot in 10 states may help.
If we hold the senate,
I agree, impeachment is off the table but neutering the zealots is not. Real ethics rules, limited terms, and add 4 more justices. All at once. Why not? There are 13 appeals courts. Why not 13 justices?
The only question is will Schumer have the guts to wield power as ruthlessly as McConnell?
Do away with the filibuster and use the power to reform that corrupted and bought court.
Does anyone think McConnell or (if he gets re-elected )Scott would hesitate?
"HHS offered the state an alternative: Providers could give patients seeking pregnancy counseling or referrals the telephone number of a national call-in hotline instead."
(Amy Howe's account)
No dice. Anti-abortion extremism like the 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court pre-Dobbs that struck down even minimal requirements put on crisis pregnancy clinics.
“HHS offered that it would provide a national call-in number that Oklahoma could give to individuals. Oklahoma officials rejected the offer, HHS cut their grant, and Oklahoma sued.”
That's fine. I skimmed the substack and must have skipped that specific part. (I read a lot online & that happens.) I wanted to note I was quoting Amy Howe. If nothing else, it just shows another SCOTUS reporter is reporting the same thing.
It was not intended to be a suggestion you skipped something.
Do you also think they might also want to leave that rule alone, that the government can place conditions on grant funding, because when in power the Republicans also relish using it? Especially in the abortion context? I realize they are drunk with power, but the ripples from messing with this system will be very ugly.
Does the J. Coney Barrett position indicate a continued slide toward a "centrist" swing-vote posture, and perhaps guiding J. "I love beer" in the same direction?
I just read/Reuters, that
Paxton/TX is suing HHS
concerning HIPPA disclosures
on women in TX who have
left the state to obtain
abortions elsewhere,
via a Trump friendly judge.
This would open up
prosecution of not only the
women, but the physicians
and facilities providing the
procedure. Am sure he'll want
to have SCOTUS involved.
This is reprehensible!
Chris, thank you for all you
are doing to expand Law Dork
here and far afield. This is a
very important endeavor!
I would not get comfortable if I were those three. If the Dems take all, there will be a reckoning.
The sooner the better.
We need them and their fascist, religious zealotry off the bench.
I wish. But it's kind of unlikely that the Democrats can take the Senate. And if they do, they won't have a supermajority, which I think you need to impeach a judge.
We will see.
If we win the senate it will be by the skin of our teeth.
Abortion on the ballot in 10 states may help.
If we hold the senate,
I agree, impeachment is off the table but neutering the zealots is not. Real ethics rules, limited terms, and add 4 more justices. All at once. Why not? There are 13 appeals courts. Why not 13 justices?
The only question is will Schumer have the guts to wield power as ruthlessly as McConnell?
Do away with the filibuster and use the power to reform that corrupted and bought court.
Does anyone think McConnell or (if he gets re-elected )Scott would hesitate?
"HHS offered the state an alternative: Providers could give patients seeking pregnancy counseling or referrals the telephone number of a national call-in hotline instead."
(Amy Howe's account)
No dice. Anti-abortion extremism like the 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court pre-Dobbs that struck down even minimal requirements put on crisis pregnancy clinics.
That’s literally in my piece?
“HHS offered that it would provide a national call-in number that Oklahoma could give to individuals. Oklahoma officials rejected the offer, HHS cut their grant, and Oklahoma sued.”
(Chris Geidner’s account)
That's fine. I skimmed the substack and must have skipped that specific part. (I read a lot online & that happens.) I wanted to note I was quoting Amy Howe. If nothing else, it just shows another SCOTUS reporter is reporting the same thing.
It was not intended to be a suggestion you skipped something.
Do you also think they might also want to leave that rule alone, that the government can place conditions on grant funding, because when in power the Republicans also relish using it? Especially in the abortion context? I realize they are drunk with power, but the ripples from messing with this system will be very ugly.
Does the J. Coney Barrett position indicate a continued slide toward a "centrist" swing-vote posture, and perhaps guiding J. "I love beer" in the same direction?