Posted on Sep 25, 2020
Ann McFeatters: A Trump-packed court means more guns, fewer rights and less health care
513
15
5
8
8
0
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 3
More guns...OK, that would mean more respect for 2A rights. Good.
Fewer rights? Ummm...what?
Less health care? You mean like when doctors folded up shop when the ACA was forced upon us and people ACTUALLY lost their health care? Or when they lost the insurance plan that HAD been working for them and suddenly couldn't afford coverage or treatment? She's conflating insurance with "health care."
Fewer rights? Ummm...what?
Less health care? You mean like when doctors folded up shop when the ACA was forced upon us and people ACTUALLY lost their health care? Or when they lost the insurance plan that HAD been working for them and suddenly couldn't afford coverage or treatment? She's conflating insurance with "health care."
(2)
(0)
Sgt James S.
Full disclosure: I wrote the above response based solely on the headline info.
Having actually opened the article, I can see that it makes even less sense than the headline. LOL
Just going to critique a few of her points
"A majority of Americans want gun control, environmental protection..."
Gun control -- no they don't, and even if they did, it's irrelevant unless they get an amendment ratified that would allow for it. Until then, "gun control" is hitting your intended target and not dropping the gun when you fire.
Environmental protection -- pretty sure nobody wants to live in a toxic swamp, but protections have to be reasonable. Interpreting the laws to claim a puddle of rainwater on someone's property triggers some federal environmental protections isn't reasonable (and yes, this sort of thing HAS happened).
"...If [the ACA] is ruled unconstitutional, as many conservatives hope and expect, preexisting conditions would no longer be required to be covered...."
There is nothing stopping Congress from passing a stand-alone bill requiring health insurance companies that operate in multiple states to cover pre-existing conditions with their policies.
"One constant goal of many conservatives has been to undo the unanimous 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that ruled racial discrimination in public schools is unconstitutional, overturning the doctrine of separate but equal schools."
I don't know of any conservative that has even had this on their wish list, let alone as a legislative or judicial priority.
"But as the country has become polarized, the Court, too has been politicized as more justices have made their views known before ascending to the highest bench and are nominated for those views rather than judicial impartiality."
Since the Supreme Court reviews challenged laws to see if they are permissible within the restraints of the Constitution, knowing how a prospective SCOTUS Justice views and understands the Constitution matters, and always has.
Having actually opened the article, I can see that it makes even less sense than the headline. LOL
Just going to critique a few of her points
"A majority of Americans want gun control, environmental protection..."
Gun control -- no they don't, and even if they did, it's irrelevant unless they get an amendment ratified that would allow for it. Until then, "gun control" is hitting your intended target and not dropping the gun when you fire.
Environmental protection -- pretty sure nobody wants to live in a toxic swamp, but protections have to be reasonable. Interpreting the laws to claim a puddle of rainwater on someone's property triggers some federal environmental protections isn't reasonable (and yes, this sort of thing HAS happened).
"...If [the ACA] is ruled unconstitutional, as many conservatives hope and expect, preexisting conditions would no longer be required to be covered...."
There is nothing stopping Congress from passing a stand-alone bill requiring health insurance companies that operate in multiple states to cover pre-existing conditions with their policies.
"One constant goal of many conservatives has been to undo the unanimous 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that ruled racial discrimination in public schools is unconstitutional, overturning the doctrine of separate but equal schools."
I don't know of any conservative that has even had this on their wish list, let alone as a legislative or judicial priority.
"But as the country has become polarized, the Court, too has been politicized as more justices have made their views known before ascending to the highest bench and are nominated for those views rather than judicial impartiality."
Since the Supreme Court reviews challenged laws to see if they are permissible within the restraints of the Constitution, knowing how a prospective SCOTUS Justice views and understands the Constitution matters, and always has.
(2)
(0)
meanwhile Dems are paralyzed to do anything about border because PRES TRUMP was right. also side note, isnt Mayor Adams a racist. When Pres Trump said similar things,.....
(1)
(0)
Read This Next