Senator Murray Holds a Press Conference About Amy Coney Barrett While Mystery Seattle Ladies Take a More Direct Approach

Comments

1

"But hey! A press conference! Cool! That probably helped!"

OK, what's your idea, then?

2

So nice to see Patty resurface again.

3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X-xIC1lEKw

4

What would you have Patty do - shiv Mitch McConnell in between hearings? Cathartic, sure, but not very realistic.

5

That is an odd photo. No masks? The heck.

6

Can't the 2021 House and Senate (Democrats + sympathetic Republicans like Rob Portman) make marriage equality a law? Seems like that would take away the power of saying it was judicial activism. All her objections about marriage equality are that she disagrees that it's inherent in the constitution, but a she looses that argument one congress passes a law. Either that or she's exposed as a hypocrite.

7

@5 the Stranger uses stock photos from who cares when. So this one is from January 24.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/sen-patty-murray-ranking-member-of-senate-health-education-news-photo/1201697221

8

According to a tweet about McConnell at the airport, one of those women was from Seattle. Maybe she will speak up.

9

This is the most pathetic excuse for journalism or opinion writing I’ve seen since middle school.
There is no legal mechanism available to Democratic Senators that can prevent this vote. The only battle they can win, and thus should be focusing their energy in is the battle for public opinion. Retaking the Senate and rebalancing the court will do a shot ton more good than harassing lawmakers at the airport, however fun or justified it might be.

10

@5: It's an old pre-covid stock Getty photo.

11

Under the leadership of then-State Senator Ed Murray, we voters in Washington state removed sexual discrimination from marriage in 2012. The Supreme Court ruling, years later, said that all Americans have the right to marry. If a future Supreme Court reverses that ruling, Washington state's marriage law would be unaffected.

Similarly, we voters codified Roe v. Wade into state law with Initiative 120, in 1991. If a future Supreme Court were to alter or reverse Roe, Washington state's pro-choice law would be unaffected.

(The Supreme Court's most recent reversal on gay rights was in 2003, when Lawrence vs. Texas, citing Roe as valid precedent, reversed Bowers vs. Hardwick; Bowers had said states could ban certain homosexual acts. Those rulings were a mere 17 years apart, and Lawrence invalidated any remaining anti-gay-sex laws in our country.)