We all knew Trump's nominee would stink on ice, right? My objection is that the nominee is another Catholic - the worst kind of Catholic, the uptight, white male, angry, doctrinaire Catholic. So many already sitting on the Court. Man, Scalia didn't die, he multiplied. And Kavanaugh, being Catholic, should - in a perfect world - kind of disqualify him from the post since there are already so many of his type there.. We need more non-Catholics on the Supreme Court like we need more women and more minorities, maybe even an atheist or two? But I know that Trump and the Republicans care not a whit about diversity on the Supreme Court. Score a big one for the Federalist Society and for the Koch brothers.
Here's the thing - if the Court reverses Roe, I am going to be very angry. If the Court reverses Obergefell and US v. Windsor, I am going to lose my shit.
Also, I'm not sure it follows protocol for a senator to vote against a Supreme Court nominee merely because you disagree with him/her politically, or even if you disagree with all of his/her opinions. I think you have to find something in their personal life or decisions that is so egregious as to disqualify like writing somewhere that whites are smarter than blacks or something misogynistic or anti-Semitic. It's that protocol that compels conservative senators to vote reluctantly for liberal nominees and vice versa. You can't vote against a nominee just because you don't like him/her or maybe that's changed.
So third party voters, you were warned this would happen so one assumes you are all donating a great deal of time and money to Planned Parenthood and Llamda Legal as well as protesting in the streets on the daily. I mean it's the least you can do in exchange for having gotten your heart's desire isn't it? You didn't want Clinton in the White House and that's what you got. And if you think I will EVER let you off the hook you are mistaken, so roll up those sleeves, get out your wallets and get to work. And none of your whining! You know perfectly well we wouldn't be looking at the end of Roe v Wade or Obergfell being threatened if Clinton had been elected and I am not here for any more of your bullshit on the matter.
@7: Yes, of course, Merrick Garland. Mitch the Bitch held up that vote, I wonder if it had been brought to the floor, how many R's would have voted for him (barring any nasty disclosures).
@ 6, Plenty of us were sounding the alarm for over a year that Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate that would lose to the Republinazi nominee, yet people like you forced her on us anyway. I’ve never seen so much groupthink, denial, and willful blindness in my life.
Tdumbp voters, along with our despicable, evil political system, are to blame for Tdumbp.
If you’re desperate for someone else to blame however, you can start by looking in the mirror.
@10: Once you've voted more than once, you'll realize that EVERY election cycle has a candidate that fails to meet your ideal. Then you'll learn that it's better to hold your nose and vote for the less awful one, and ones that meet 40% of your preferences, because the alternative is the one that meets maybe 5%, and the least important 5% at that.
What I don't understand about City Light is how they constantly nag, nag, nag, us to save energy (just look how much power you're hogging compared to your "efficient" neighbors who unplug their TVs every night!) - and then turn around and demand higher rates because, surprise, people aren't using enough power to keep them afloat. Am I the first one who's noticed this?
Re: Supreme Court. Everyone's freaking out about abortion and same-sex marriage, but Obamacare is the more likely first victim. Welcome back, pre-existing conditions!
@10 You sound just like my 20-year-old self in 1980, who refused to vote for Carter (mainly because of his belligerence toward Iran) and thus helped elect Reagan. Hopefully by the next election you will realize, as I eventually did, that while you are entitled to vote for whomever you want in the primary, by the time of the general it's too late for idealism. You've lost the internal battle and it's now your civic duty to limit the damage by holding your nose and voting for the horribly compromised center-left candidate, even if your greater impulse is to strangle them. (Believe me, I understand that impulse, especially where the Clintons are concerned.)
@10: Nope. I supported Sanders, and even voted for him in the primary. Clinton won the nomination, and I voted for her in the the general. You know why? Because, like you, I knew this would happen if Clinton didn't win, and unlike you I gave a fuck. You got what you wanted, and this what it looks like, so I suggest you start busting your ass to try to do something about it. Because honest to god if I lived in a state where I was in legit and imminent danger of having my physical autonomy stripped from me the way a good portion or women in this country are now? I would punch you right in your sanctimonious mouth.
I'm interested in funding statehouse (and county... and city... and school board...) reporters, but I can not in good conscience send so much as a fucking penny to the Seattle Times Editorial Board.
Ever read the book freakonomics? The book put forward the theory based on analysis of data that the sharp decline in crime in the 1980's and 1990's in cities like New York was directly correlated with the Roe v Wade decision to legalize abortion in all states. The unwanted babies didn't have to grow up in miserable conditions to a parent(s) that didn't want them and couldn't afford them and so the nation saw a decline in the population of criminals and criminal activity.
So in addition to stripping from women the right to control their own bodies, any decision to restrict abortion rights will most likely have the impact of increasing crime rates in about 16 to 18 years.
I'm assuming you're a billionaire? Because if you're not, they're not making America great for you. You do know republicans only enact policies to empower billionaires, yes?
I march in protests, I call my reps, I donate money to Dems all over the country, I ask my friends and relatives to vote. I’m doing everything I can.
It’s really fucking sad that you feel that judging me makes you feel better about yourself, or that you think that lashing out at your allies will somehow pull us out of this disaster.
What are you doing about the 53% of white women who voted for Tdumpb, or the half of eligible voters that just couldn’t be bothered? Are you also gonna punch them in the mouth?
@23: What a stupid question. It goes without saying that those who actually voted for 45 are despicable. My beef is with people like you. People who supposedly did not share their goals. People who should have known better, who were warned that this would happened, but for whom sticking it to Clinton was more important. And yes, also the pernicious fools who did not vote. Clear enough for ya?
We all knew Trump's nominee would stink on ice, right? My objection is that the nominee is another Catholic - the worst kind of Catholic, the uptight, white male, angry, doctrinaire Catholic. So many already sitting on the Court. Man, Scalia didn't die, he multiplied. And Kavanaugh, being Catholic, should - in a perfect world - kind of disqualify him from the post since there are already so many of his type there.. We need more non-Catholics on the Supreme Court like we need more women and more minorities, maybe even an atheist or two? But I know that Trump and the Republicans care not a whit about diversity on the Supreme Court. Score a big one for the Federalist Society and for the Koch brothers.
Here's the thing - if the Court reverses Roe, I am going to be very angry. If the Court reverses Obergefell and US v. Windsor, I am going to lose my shit.
@1: Stop with the religious bigotry. It isn't helpful and hardly democratic or progressive.
The papists mackerel snappers will only take their orders from Rome!!!
It just goes to show what whores for power the conservatives are. What sort of ethical judge would want to be a trump appointee?
Also, I'm not sure it follows protocol for a senator to vote against a Supreme Court nominee merely because you disagree with him/her politically, or even if you disagree with all of his/her opinions. I think you have to find something in their personal life or decisions that is so egregious as to disqualify like writing somewhere that whites are smarter than blacks or something misogynistic or anti-Semitic. It's that protocol that compels conservative senators to vote reluctantly for liberal nominees and vice versa. You can't vote against a nominee just because you don't like him/her or maybe that's changed.
So third party voters, you were warned this would happen so one assumes you are all donating a great deal of time and money to Planned Parenthood and Llamda Legal as well as protesting in the streets on the daily. I mean it's the least you can do in exchange for having gotten your heart's desire isn't it? You didn't want Clinton in the White House and that's what you got. And if you think I will EVER let you off the hook you are mistaken, so roll up those sleeves, get out your wallets and get to work. And none of your whining! You know perfectly well we wouldn't be looking at the end of Roe v Wade or Obergfell being threatened if Clinton had been elected and I am not here for any more of your bullshit on the matter.
@4 "It's that protocol that compels conservative senators to vote reluctantly for liberal nominees and vice versa"
Where have you been living for the last few years? Maybe we should get Merrick Garland's take on all of this.
2@: I simply don't want men who subscribe to an intellectually embarrassing myth cooked up in the Bronze Age calling the shots for my country.
@7: Yes, of course, Merrick Garland. Mitch the Bitch held up that vote, I wonder if it had been brought to the floor, how many R's would have voted for him (barring any nasty disclosures).
@ 6, Plenty of us were sounding the alarm for over a year that Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate that would lose to the Republinazi nominee, yet people like you forced her on us anyway. I’ve never seen so much groupthink, denial, and willful blindness in my life.
Tdumbp voters, along with our despicable, evil political system, are to blame for Tdumbp.
If you’re desperate for someone else to blame however, you can start by looking in the mirror.
Do not vote this democrat into the state senate https://www.fusewashington.org/news/who-rodney-tom-anyway
@10: Once you've voted more than once, you'll realize that EVERY election cycle has a candidate that fails to meet your ideal. Then you'll learn that it's better to hold your nose and vote for the less awful one, and ones that meet 40% of your preferences, because the alternative is the one that meets maybe 5%, and the least important 5% at that.
You'll get it one day.
What I don't understand about City Light is how they constantly nag, nag, nag, us to save energy (just look how much power you're hogging compared to your "efficient" neighbors who unplug their TVs every night!) - and then turn around and demand higher rates because, surprise, people aren't using enough power to keep them afloat. Am I the first one who's noticed this?
Shorter @10:
"65,845,063 voters CAN'T be right..."
Re: Supreme Court. Everyone's freaking out about abortion and same-sex marriage, but Obamacare is the more likely first victim. Welcome back, pre-existing conditions!
@10 You sound just like my 20-year-old self in 1980, who refused to vote for Carter (mainly because of his belligerence toward Iran) and thus helped elect Reagan. Hopefully by the next election you will realize, as I eventually did, that while you are entitled to vote for whomever you want in the primary, by the time of the general it's too late for idealism. You've lost the internal battle and it's now your civic duty to limit the damage by holding your nose and voting for the horribly compromised center-left candidate, even if your greater impulse is to strangle them. (Believe me, I understand that impulse, especially where the Clintons are concerned.)
@10: Nope. I supported Sanders, and even voted for him in the primary. Clinton won the nomination, and I voted for her in the the general. You know why? Because, like you, I knew this would happen if Clinton didn't win, and unlike you I gave a fuck. You got what you wanted, and this what it looks like, so I suggest you start busting your ass to try to do something about it. Because honest to god if I lived in a state where I was in legit and imminent danger of having my physical autonomy stripped from me the way a good portion or women in this country are now? I would punch you right in your sanctimonious mouth.
"And Subscribe To Newspapers"
I'm interested in funding statehouse (and county... and city... and school board...) reporters, but I can not in good conscience send so much as a fucking penny to the Seattle Times Editorial Board.
Where's a decent place to send my money?
Ever read the book freakonomics? The book put forward the theory based on analysis of data that the sharp decline in crime in the 1980's and 1990's in cities like New York was directly correlated with the Roe v Wade decision to legalize abortion in all states. The unwanted babies didn't have to grow up in miserable conditions to a parent(s) that didn't want them and couldn't afford them and so the nation saw a decline in the population of criminals and criminal activity.
So in addition to stripping from women the right to control their own bodies, any decision to restrict abortion rights will most likely have the impact of increasing crime rates in about 16 to 18 years.
@13,
I'm assuming you're a billionaire? Because if you're not, they're not making America great for you. You do know republicans only enact policies to empower billionaires, yes?
@ 17,
I march in protests, I call my reps, I donate money to Dems all over the country, I ask my friends and relatives to vote. I’m doing everything I can.
It’s really fucking sad that you feel that judging me makes you feel better about yourself, or that you think that lashing out at your allies will somehow pull us out of this disaster.
What are you doing about the 53% of white women who voted for Tdumpb, or the half of eligible voters that just couldn’t be bothered? Are you also gonna punch them in the mouth?
Whatever, asshole. (Rolls eyes).
@17: That last sentence was unbecoming of you, and unlike you. But you're a little stressed, so we'll let it go - this time.
@24: What is with conservatives and this "we" stuff? You speaking on behalf of the troll farm?
@23: What a stupid question. It goes without saying that those who actually voted for 45 are despicable. My beef is with people like you. People who supposedly did not share their goals. People who should have known better, who were warned that this would happened, but for whom sticking it to Clinton was more important. And yes, also the pernicious fools who did not vote. Clear enough for ya?