The application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted in part, and the district court’s September 18, 2020 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The order is stayed except to the extent that any ballots cast before this stay issues and received within two days of this order may not be rejected for failing to comply with the witness requirement.
So basically this is the first of many cases that will end up before the USSC in terms of recent executive orders or judicial orders that makes changes to current election law. This was a shot across the bow, and legal experts suggest that this will be a precedent moving forward. There is little reason to believe that the USSC will pick and choose here. This was a 9-0 decision to stay the order (with three of the Justices showing a willingness to rule with an absolute reversal rather than a stay while the court considers the appeal).
In other words, pretty much every order made that does not reflect current election laws and is not passed through the state congresses between now and the election are likely in danger of being overturned by the USSC court. Exactly how that affects the 2020 election depends on whether or not you believe that Joe Biden is ahead by 14 to 16 points (as CNN or NBC sees it) or 2 to 3 points as Zogby and TIPP see it.
32 comments:
I strongly, joyfully believe the former. :-)
NBC News’ ‘Undecided’ Voters Previously Featured as Biden Supporters on MSNBC
Questioners openly supported Dems prior to Florida town hall
https://freebeacon.com/media/undecided-voters-at-nbc-town-hall-previously-told-network-they-were-voting-biden/
The FAKE NEWS media sure don't appear to think Biden is way ahead so they cheat.
Always one way.
This may very well end in the Supreme Court and by then we will finally have a constitutional court.
Joe Biden talks about "people who in fact clip coupons and that's the only source of their income."
What?
https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1313612840046080000
and he wants to be president
he's actually like Dukakis on a daily basis when he gets out.
ROFLMFAO !!!
The state of Texas has limited the number of polling sites to one per county.
The largest county has about 1.4 million eligible voters. It has a very diverse population. It's clearly voting suppression.
I have to verify that except number.
It’s one location for absentee ballot drop offs you stark raving loon
And the announcement was FIVE FUCKING DAYS AGO
Get a life
CH SAID
Exactly how that affects the 2020 election depends on whether or not you believe that Joe Biden is ahead by 14 to 16 points (as CNN or NBC sees it) or 2 to 3 points as Zogby and TIPP see it.
Well, Ch, I'm sure you know more about it than I do, but
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/538
gives NBC an A- rating
and
gives Zogby Inteactive/JZ Analytics a C+ rating.
TIPP is given an A/B rating.
I found NO ratings for CNN
but when I looked elsewhere I found CNN/Gallup and CNN/Time.
I found for Gallup listed separately a B rating.
TIME I could not find.
As for me, I rely on RealClearPolitics for individual polls and for aggregates.
I don't believe that is correct, Roger.
As I have heard it, the governor of Texas has limited drop off boxes to ONE PER COUNTY.
This has been severely criticized, as some Texas counties are huge in size and or population and this is an obvious hardship for the elderly, those with limited transportation.
IOW MORE VOTER SUPPRESSION!
Texas governor limits election drop boxes to one per county in sprawling state
CNN 1 day ago
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued a proclamation Thursday limiting the amount of drop-off locations for mail-in ballots to one site per county.
The move significantly affects the Democratic stronghold of Harris County, which is the state's largest county by population -- one of the most populous in the country -- and covers a massive area. It must now reduce its 12 drop-off locations down to one starting on Friday, according to Elizabeth Lewis, spokeswoman for the Harris County Clerk's Office. Travis County, which includes the reliably Democratic city of Austin, must limit its four drop-off locations to one.
Other large counties -- like Tarrant, Dallas and El Paso County -- only had one drop-off location already in place.
The Republican governor said in a statement the order was made to enhance ballot security. It also allows poll watchers to observe the in-person delivery of mail-in ballots by voters, but critics say it could severely limit access for many voters.
"The State of Texas has a duty to voters to maintain the integrity of our elections," Abbott said. "As we work to preserve Texans' ability to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic, we must take extra care to strengthen ballot security protocols throughout the state. These enhanced security protocols will ensure greater transparency and will help stop attempts at illegal voting."
The decision has already drawn fire from Texas Democrats.
Judge Lina Hidalgo, the top elected official in Harris County, told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "PrimeTime" Thursday evening, "There is no reason for this decision to limit us to one drop-off location other than voter suppression."
Calling the drop-off sites "secure" and "safe," Hidalgo urged Texas residents to consider, "If these leaders truly are doing right by you, why are they so afraid of you voting?"
"I'm reminding our residents here in Harris County, our citizens, that we are not to be intimidated. That this is a time to participate, and, yes, it's going to be harder and, yes, they're trying to confuse and they're trying to suppress the vote, but for that very reason, we need to show everyone who's watching that we're going to participate because it's about democracy."
The state's Democratic party chair, Gilberto Hinojosa, labeled the step a "blatant voter suppression tactic" in a press release. The group Let America Vote also blasted the move.
"The governor is making it harder for people to vote in the middle of a global pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 16,000 Texans," the group said in a statement. "It is a shameful, blatant act of voter suppression that will disproportionately impact the large number of Black and Latino voters in Texas' biggest counties."
Former Democratic presidential candidate and Texas native Julian Castro similarly cast Abbott's proclamation as an effort to make voting "harder for fellow Texans."
The Republican governor, he tweeted, "knows how angry Texans are with Trump's failure, (Republican Sen. John) Cornyn's failure and his own to keep Texans safe and our people working."
In July, Abbott issued an order expanding the amount of time for early voting by six days and for hand-delivering mail-in ballots out of safety concerns due to the pandemic.
Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins said in a statement that Abbott was going back on his word with the proclamation, having expanded access to voting with that earlier order.
"Going back on his word at this point harms voters and will result in widespread confusion and voter suppression. Many mail ballots have already been dropped off by voters across Harris County, and multiple drop-off locations have been advertised for weeks," Hollins said.
"Our office is more than willing to accommodate poll watchers at mail ballot drop-off locations. But to force hundreds of thousands of seniors and voters with disabilities to use a single drop-off location in a county that stretches over nearly 2,000 square miles is prejudicial and dangerous."
A pair of recent court rulings -- one in favor of age limits for no-excuse mail voting and one against the sending of mail-in ballot applications to residents in Harris County -- have enraged Texas Democrats and voting rights activists.
Texas has been traditionally Republican over the last several decades, but Democrats think it is in play in the November election. Multiple polls have found a tight race between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in the Lone Star State, with several indicating the candidates were separated by only 1 point in July.
Abbott's stated concerns about "attempts at illegal voting" in Texas come as the President continues to lean into a conspiratorial message around the US voting process and particularly mail-in voting.
While rare instances of voter fraud from mail-in ballots do occur, it is nowhere near a widespread problem in the US election system.
In fact, mail ballot fraud is exceedingly rare in part because states have systems and processes in place to prevent forgery, theft and voter fraud. These systems would apply to both absentee ballots and mail-in ballots for in-state voters.
Vote suppression is another form of vote fraud, conducted by the state.
Then mail it you fucking twats it’s pre-addressed and postage paid
Jesus
I just saw this.
"Joe Biden is a good man.
Donald Trump is not."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi94gpFNgv8
"I am not a pathological liar and narcissist self centered person who cares for himself only" Alky
Lordie , spectacularly wrong.
Michael Hayden Endorses Biden
Former CIA director Michael Hayden endorsed Joe Biden for president in a powerful new video.
See it above.
Says Hayden: “If there is another term for Trump, I don’t know what happens to America.”
Trump’s Return Leaves White House in Disarray
9:20 pm
“The White House that President Trump woke up in on Tuesday morning was in full-blown chaos, even by the standards of the havoc of the Trump era,” the New York Times reports.
“Aides said the president’s voice was stronger after his return from the hospital Monday night, but at times he still sounded as if he was trying to catch air. The West Wing was mostly empty, cleared of advisers who were out sick with the coronavirus themselves or told to work from home rather than in the capital’s most famous virus hot spot. Staff members in the White House residence were in full personal protective equipment, including yellow gowns, surgical masks and disposable protective eye covers.
“Four more White House officials tested positive, including Stephen Miller, a top adviser to Mr. Trump, bringing to 14 the number of people carrying the virus at the White House or in the president’s close circle.”
_________
Actually, the White House is refusing to announce how many staff persons have been infected.
Biden Makes Up Ground In West Virginia
9:13 pm
A new WMOV Radio poll in West Virginia finds Donald Trump leading Joe Biden by 18 percentage points, 56% to 38%.
While that’s a huge lead, Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the state by 42 percentage points in 2016. That represents a 24-point swing towards Democrats.
___________
If it has swung that much even in W. Va., think what is going to happen elsewhere.
"Puerto Rico Gov. Wanda Vázquez Garced endorsed President Donald Trump for reelection in a Tuesday interview with Telemundo, urging Puerto Ricans living in the United States to vote for the president.
“I ask all Puerto Ricans who are listening to go vote,” the governor told the news outlet. “They have to go to vote, exercise their right to vote and evaluate who has represented being a person who thinks about Puerto Ricans and their needs at the most difficult moment: It is Donald Trump.”
""And I want to see these beautiful young ladies- I want to see them dancing when they're four years older" Pedo Joe
Oh NO! OH NO! Biden just dropped in the electoral vote count! Oh NO!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/2020_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
Biden gave a very impressive speech at Gettysburg today. I recommend everyone watch it, regardless of whether they support Biden, Trump, or someone else.
Welcome back Indy.
The more thoughtful people come in handy here!
Joseph Petro is a former special agent and senior executive with the Secret Service. It's not fake news rrb
I served as a special agent and senior executive in the Secret Service for 23 years, including in supervisory roles under President Ronald Reagan and Vice President Dan Quayle. During my time with Reagan, we required the agents to wear protective vests whenever they accompanied the president outside the White House. These vests were very uncomfortable, but everyone understood and accepted the need to wear them. On a number of occasions, I asked the president to wear one. His response was similar to that of the agents, but he never refused to wear the vest.
We did this because the safety of our agents and those we were protecting was always our highest priority. Today, it seems, that is not always the case.
The most recent example is President Trump’s decision over the weekend to take a ride in a Chevrolet Suburban around Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for the sole purpose of waving to those gathered along a street. Given the president’s covid-19 infection, this was a gratuitous and dangerous political exercise that needlessly exposed his Secret Service agents — as well as their families — to the potentially deadly novel coronavirus. Where was the Secret Service senior management? Did anyone resist this potential danger to these agents and perhaps their families? It was an avoidable risk, and someone should have objected.
That was by no means the first time Secret Service agents have been put in danger. Our nation’s health professionals have consistently advised that wearing protective masks in public places is the single most important protection against covid-19. The president, however, has politicized compliance with this recommendation. He has refused to wear a mask on nearly all occasions, and his staff and most attendees at his rallies follow his example. The inevitable result has been the surge in positive cases among the president’s staff and other associates.
I have noticed that the Secret Service agents assigned to the president have also not been wearing protective masks. This is very disappointing. I can tell you from experience that wearing a protective mask is not nearly as uncomfortable as wearing a protective vest. The unfortunate irony is that an agent is much more likely to be exposed to someone with the coronavirus than to a bullet being fired toward the president.
I hold the management of the Secret Service responsible for this inexcusable lack of concern for the lives of the agents and their families. These agents attend a presidential event surrounded by staff members, including the president, and thousands of attendees not wearing protective masks and then return home that night, potentially exposing their families and their local communities to this deadly virus.
The Secret Service has had the responsibility to protect our president since 1901, when it began protecting Theodore Roosevelt in the aftermath of the McKinley assassination. In all the years since then, the agency has recognized the importance of training agents to keep them safe. What has happened to that commitment?
I would hope the Secret Service would reflect on the decades of effort made to protect the agents in the performance of their important duties and require them to wear masks. The Secret Service cannot protect the president from himself, but its management has a solemn responsibility to protect those agents who put their lives on the line every day to protect him. It should not be that hard to do.
Biden has vowed to be a president for all Americans, even those who do not support him. In previous elections, such a promise might have sounded trite or treacly. Today, the idea that the president should have the entire nation’s interests at heart feels almost revolutionary.
Mr. Biden has also vowed to “restore the soul of America.” It is a painful reminder that the country is weaker, angrier, less hopeful and more divided than it was four years ago. With this promise, Mr. Biden is assuring the public that he recognizes the magnitude of what the next president is being called upon to do. Thankfully, he is well suited to the challenge — perhaps particularly so.
Kathleen Kingsbury, acting editorial page editor, wrote about the choice to endorse Joe Biden for president in a special edition of our Opinion Today newsletter. You can read it here.
In the midst of unrelenting chaos, Mr. Biden is offering an anxious, exhausted nation something beyond policy or ideology. His campaign is rooted in steadiness, experience, compassion and decency.
A President Biden would embrace the rule of law and restore public confidence in democratic institutions. He would return a respect for science and expertise to the government. He would stock his administration with competent, qualified, principled individuals. He would stand with America’s allies and against adversaries that seek to undermine our democracy. He would work to address systemic injustices. He would not court foreign autocrats or give comfort to white supremacists. His focus would be on healing divisions and rallying the nation around shared values. He would understand that his first duty, always, is to the American people.
But Mr. Biden is more than simply a steady hand on the wheel. His message of unity and pragmatism resonated with Democratic voters, who turned out in large numbers to elevate him above a sprawling primary field.
His team has put together a bold agenda aimed at tackling some of America’s most pressing problems. The former vice president is committed to working toward universal health care through measures such as adding a public option to the Affordable Care Act — which he played a significant role in passing — lowering the age for Medicare eligibility to 60 years old and cutting the cost of prescription drugs. He recognizes the fateful threat of climate change and has put forward an ambitious, $2 trillion plan to slash carbon emissions, invest in a green economy and combat environmental racism.
Mr. Biden will not be morphing into an ideological maximalist any time soon, but he has acknowledged that the current trifecta of crises — a lethal pandemic, an economic meltdown and racial unrest — calls for an expanded governing vision. His campaign has been reaching out to a wide range of thinkers, including former rivals, to help craft more dynamic solutions. In midsummer, he rolled out an economic recovery plan, dubbed “Build Back Better,” with proposals to bolster American manufacturing, spur innovation, build a “clean-energy economy,” advance racial equity and support caregivers and educators. His plan for fighting the coronavirus includes the creation of a public health jobs corps. Progressives who want even more from him should not be afraid to push. Experience is not the same as stagnation.
Mr. Biden has a long and distinguished record of accomplishment, including, as a senator, sponsoring the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and, as vice president, overseeing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, passed in response to the Great Recession. In a 2012 interview on “Meet the Press,” his remarks in support of gay marriage — which blindsided the Obama White House and caused a public kerfuffle — proved a watershed moment for the cause of equality. In 1996, Mr. Biden had voted as a senator in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages, making his evolution on the issue particularly resonant.
He has an unusually rich grasp of and experience in foreign policy, which, as traditionally understood, has not played a central role in the presidential race — though the pandemic, the climate crisis, a more assertive China and disinformation wars against the American public argue strongly that it should. The next president will face the task of repairing the enormous damage inflicted on America’s global reputation.
Mr. Biden has the necessary chops, having spent much of his career focused on global concerns. He not only took on thorny diplomatic missions as vice president, he also served more than three decades on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Aware that an “America First” approach in reality amounts to “America alone,” he would work to revive and refurbish damaged alliances. He has the respect and trust of America’s allies and would not be played for a fool by its adversaries.
Certainly, not all of Mr. Biden’s foreign policy decisions through the decades look sage in hindsight, but he has shown foresight in key moments. He fought a rear-guard action in the Obama White House to limit the futile surge in Afghanistan. He was against the 2011 intervention in Libya and skeptical of committing American troops to Syria. He opposed renewing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2007 and 2008 because it gave the government too much power to spy on Americans. He’s supported closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay. Little wonder that he has the backing of a who’s who of the foreign policy community and national security officials from both parties.
Mr. Biden is not an ideological purist or a bomb-thrower. Some will see this as a shortcoming or hopelessly naïve. Certainly, it’s unlikely that if Republicans retain control of the Senate, their leader, Mitch McConnell, will abandon his policy of fanatical obstructionism of any Democratic president.
That said, as the emissary often dispatched by President Barack Obama to deal with Republican lawmakers during tough legislative fights, Mr. Biden has intimate experience with the partisan gridlock crippling Congress. He knows how the levers of power work on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and he has longstanding relationships with members from both parties. More than any of this cycle’s other presidential hopefuls, he offered weary voters a chance to see whether even a modicum of bipartisanship is possible.
He is also offering a glimpse of the Democratic Party’s future in his choice of running mate, Senator Kamala Harris of California. Ms. Harris would become a number of firsts — a woman, a Black person and an Asian-American — as vice president, adding history-making excitement to the ticket. A former prosecutor, she is tough, smart and can dismantle a faulty argument or political opponent. She is progressive, but not radical. In her own presidential campaign, she presented herself as a unifying leader with center-left policy proposals in a mold similar to Mr. Biden, albeit a generation younger. Mr. Biden is aware that he no longer qualifies as a fresh face and has said that he considers himself a bridge to the party’s next generation of leaders. Ms. Harris is a promising step in that direction.
If he wins election, Mr. Biden will need to take his governing agenda to the people — all of the people, not just his party’s loudest or most online voices. This will require persuading Americans that he understands their concerns and can translate that understanding into sound policy.
Mr. Biden has a rare gift for forging such connections. In his younger days, he, like so many senators, could be in love with the sound of his own voice. Time and loss have softened his edges. He speaks the language of suffering and compassion with a raw intimacy. People respond to that, across lines of race and class — ever more so in this time of uncertainty. The father of the police-shooting victim Jacob Blake described his phone conversation with Mr. Biden as full of “love, admiration, caring,” in one of many recent examples of the former vice president’s hard-earned empathy.
Mr. Biden knows that there are no easy answers. He has the experience, temperament and character to guide the nation through this valley into a brighter, more hopeful future. He has our endorsement for the presidency.
When they go to the polls this year, voters aren’t just choosing a leader. They’re deciding what America will be. They’re deciding whether they favor the rule of law, how the government will help them weather the greatest economic calamity in generations, whether they want government to enable everyone to have access to health care, whether they consider global warming a serious threat, whether they believe that racism should be treated as a public policy problem.
Mr. Biden isn’t a perfect candidate and he wouldn’t be a perfect president. But politics is not about perfection. It is about the art of the possible and about encouraging America to embrace its better angels.
Quick Take
A popular Facebook post asks why an order by President Donald Trump “PROTECTING PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS got almost zero coverage,” and suggests it’s wrong to say he is “trying to eliminate that protection.” Trump is trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which put such protections into place, and his recent executive order, on its own, doesn’t legally guarantee them.
Full Story
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Sept. 24 expressing his administration’s intent to end surprise medical billing and ensure health coverage protections for those with preexisting conditions.
But experts say the order is largely symbolic.
Protections for people with preexisting conditions are already in place under the Affordable Care Act, though the administration — as the order emphasizes — wants to get rid of that law.
One Facebook user’s viral post, however, misleadingly suggests that the executive order actually guarantees such protections and that Trump’s action was ignored by news organizations.
“Can someone tell me why Trump signing an EO yesterday PROTECTING PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS got almost zero coverage, and why the left is STILL running ads falsely saying that he is trying to eliminate that protection?” the post, shared 42,000 times, reads. The Sept. 25 post’s text was repeated in at least one other popular post, too.
But if the Affordable Care Act were to be overturned, new legislation would be needed to supplant its safeguards for those with preexisting conditions.
Here’s some of what the executive order says about preexisting conditions:
“My Administration has been dedicated to providing better care for all Americans. This includes a steadfast commitment to always protecting individuals with pre-existing conditions and ensuring they have access to the high-quality healthcare they deserve.”
“…access to health insurance despite underlying health conditions should be maintained, even if the Supreme Court invalidates the unconstitutional, and largely harmful, ACA.”
“It has been and will continue to be the policy of the United States to give Americans seeking healthcare more choice, lower costs, and better care and to ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates.”
The order on its own doesn’t — and can’t — legally ensure such protections for those with preexisting conditions, experts say.
The order “is aspirational,” Karen Pollitz, senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation who works on its Program for the Study of Health Reform and Private Insurance, told us in a phone interview. “It has no force of law.”
Likewise, Jennifer Piatt, a research scholar with the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University, told Healthline that while Trump “states a policy to preserve coverage for preexisting conditions, a policy statement does not have any legal impact and will not bind insurance companies.”
The Trump administration has backed a lawsuit by several states to invalidate the Affordable Care Act; the suit is slated to go before the Supreme Court in November.
The ACA, often referred to as “Obamacare,” instituted protections for those with preexisting conditions. The law prohibits insurers, in any market, from denying coverage, charging more or excluding coverage of certain conditions based on health status.
Before the ACA, those buying plans on the individual market could face denials or higher premiums based on their health status and history.
An estimated 6% of the population received coverage on the individual market in 2018, though Pollitz said “people are kind of constantly churning through this market.”
Prior to the ACA, employer-based insurance policies could also decline coverage for some preexisting conditions for a limited period, if a new employee had a lapse in coverage.
JoAnn Volk, a research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, told us in an email that — if the ACA were overturned — “it would require an act of Congress to reinstate those protections for people with preexisting conditions (which is a growing number, due to COVID-19).”
It is not clear what Trump means when he says he will protect individuals with preexisting conditions. The Trump administration has not offered a comprehensive alternative to the ACA. In 2017, Trump backed Republican plans that would have weakened the preexisting condition protections in the ACA.
Trump’s executive order did garner some news coverage, contrary to the Facebook post’s argument that it got “almost zero coverage,” though many stories noted the symbolic nature of the action.
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of
Anonymous Caliphate4vr said...
It’s one location for absentee ballot drop offs you stark raving loon
Anonymous Caliphate4vr said...
And the announcement was FIVE FUCKING DAYS AGO
Get a life
that's our alky. always behind a story and always getting the critical details WRONG.
this is what happens when you derive all of your info from fakebook.
Rat and the mouth of the south practicing their spot on imitation of trump stupidity!!!!!! Maybe if trump wins.....you can celebrate his great lack of leadership......BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! No stimulus will lead to more votes for Biden!!!!1 Great optics sport!!!!!
This bitch is a whacko who will set back women's rights to the middle ages.....mouth of the south, cramps and rat applaud our trip to hell!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
By
Emma Brown,
Jon Swaine and
Michelle Boorstein
Oct. 6, 2020 at 8:09 p.m. EDT
Add to list
While Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has faced questions about how her Catholic faith might influence her jurisprudence, she has not spoken publicly about her involvement in People of Praise, a small Christian group founded in the 1970s and based in South Bend, Ind.
Barrett, a federal appellate judge, has disclosed serving on the board of a network of private Christian schools affiliated with the group. The organization, however, has declined to confirm that she is a member. In recent years, it removed from its website editions of a People of Praise magazine — first those that included her name and photograph and then all archives of the magazine itself.
Barrett has had an active role in the organization, as have her parents, according to documents and interviews that help fill out a picture of her involvement with a group that keeps its teachings and gatherings private.
A 2010 People of Praise directory states that she held the title of “handmaid,” a leadership position for women in the community, according to a directory excerpt obtained by The Washington Post.
Also, while in law school, Barrett lived at the South Bend home of People of Praise’s influential co-founder Kevin Ranaghan and his wife, Dorothy, who together helped establish the group’s male-dominated hierarchy and view of gender roles. The group was one of many to grow out of the charismatic Christian movement, which sought a more intense and communal religious experience by embracing such practices as shared living, faith healing and speaking in tongues.
Maybe if she had the title hand job.....I might think differently!!!!!!!!
An opinion counter to the mouth of the souths POS screed concerning gay marriage and his fake tenet......BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-thomas-and-alito-get-wrong-in-their-grumbling-about-same-sex-marriage/2020/10/06/e5719010-07f5-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html
Opinion by
David Von Drehle
Columnist
Oct. 6, 2020 at 6:41 p.m. EDT
Add to list
Although I don’t always agree with them — how dull if I did! — I think the nation is generally well-served by Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Thomas is a candid and original thinker whose jurisprudence is misconstrued by those who don’t bother to read or understand it. Alito is equally forthright, though the opposite of an original thinker; he is the epitome of the conservative legal tradition. Both justices have displayed an attractive disdain for showboating.
So it was disappointing to read a threadbare statement written by Thomas, joined by Alito, that was appended to a unanimous decision of the court not to hear the appeal of Kim Davis, a Kentucky public official who refused to issue marriage licenses because of her personal religious views against same-sex unions.
It was an odd document, not a dissent; just a four-page grumble about matters that may someday be a problem depending on the facts of unknown future cases. The justices might consider woodworking, because, from the looks of this, they don’t have enough to keep them busy. The statement, which carries no legal weight, is essentially a cry from the heart on behalf of Americans whose religious views condemn same-sex marriage. Fair enough: The freedom to hold beliefs different from those of the mainstream is a cherished aspect of American liberty. But the statement crosses into sophistry by suggesting that religious liberties are somehow infringed if they aren’t privileged above the civil law.
CH IS TOO BIG A COWARD TO PUT UP A THREAD STATING THAT TRUMP IS PLUMMETING IN THE POLLS
Trump Collapsing In Internal GOP Polls
7:52 am EDT
New York Times:
“New polls show Mr. Trump’s support is collapsing nationally, as he alienates women, seniors and suburbanites. He is trailing not just in must-win battlegrounds but according to private G.O.P. surveys, he is repelling independents to the point where Mr. Biden has drawn closer in solidly red states, including Montana, Kansas and Missouri, people briefed on the data said.
The Wish for Normalcy
7:55 am
Peggy Noonan:
“It’s not only the past week’s events, not just the polls and their consistency, their upward tick from a lead of 6 or 7 to a lead in some polls of double digits; it’s the data about women and voters over 65.
“No one will talk about it in public because they’re not idiots.
Journalists don’t want to be embarrassed if they’ve got it wrong;
Democrats don’t want to encourage complacency;
Republicans don’t want to demoralize the troops;
and the networks have to keep everyone hopped up on the horse race…
“But if what a growing number of people are seeing as a real possibility happens, if we are in blowout territory, I think part of the reason won’t be political in any classic sense, or ideological, or having to do with some stupid question about which candidate you want to have a beer with. If Joe Biden wins big, part of the reason, maybe a big part, will be simply that he is normal.”
AS OPPOSED TO THE CREEP NOW IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
Ole Sleepy Joe?
No, just ole normal, dependable, likeable, decent, worthy of trust Joe.
Post a Comment