Monday, October 4, 2021

The difference between registered and likely voters or something else?

Majorities back Biden spending plan, infrastructure bill: poll
The USA Today-Suffolk University survey indicated that about 63 percent of Americans support the roughly $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, which passed the Senate earlier this month, USA Today reported on Wednesday. Almost all Democrats but only 36 percent of Republicans polled reportedly support the plan. The $3.5 trillion reconciliation package, which is geared toward Democratic priorities and has been advertised as a “human infrastructure” bill, received less support but still a majority at 52 percent, including 90 percent of Democrats, nearly half of independents and 20 percent of Republicans.
Majority Oppose $3.5 Trillion Spending Bill, Against Raising Debt Ceiling
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 36% of Likely U.S. Voters support passage of the $3.5 trillion spending bill that currently has Congress deadlocked. That includes 23% who Strongly Support passage of the reconciliation bill. Fifty-three percent (53%) are opposed to passage of the $3.5 trillion spending measure, including 41% who Strongly Oppose passage. Ten percent (10%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

That is a significant difference here. In one poll 52% support the 3.5 trillion dollar monstrosity, while in another that number is only 36%.  Both polls obviously show the plan underwater with both Independents and Republicans. The difference would probably be in the sampling as well as how the poll was worded. 

In the USA Today appears to push the two spending plans together and it would appear that less than one in ten have a difference of opinion between the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the hyperpartisan reconciliation bill. The Rasmussen poll links raising the debt ceiling with the 3.5 trillion dollar reconciliation bill, which would alert potential respondents that we need to increase the debt ceiling just to consider spending another 3.5 trillion

Would the same person possibly answer differently if asked these questions in the two different contexts? I certainly believe that they would. But there is also a significant difference in the mindset of your average American and an American who is considered a likely voter. 

46 comments:

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Using the 2027 calculations, after the tax cuts expired, Democrats often would say the 2017 tax bill gave the top 1 percent 83 percent of the benefits — a claim that earned Three Pinocchios. Now, ironically, Republicans are knocking the Democrats’ bill for not fixing a problem that Republicans created in the first place.
(House Democrats, for their part, extended only through 2025 an expanded child tax credit that was included in Biden’s coronavirus relief bill but is due to expire at the end of 2021. So that also affects the numbers.)
We pointed out to Bednar that he had sent slides of years affected by the GOP tax cut. He did not respond.
The Pinocchio Test
Reasonable people can argue about whether the impact of indirect taxes, such as corporate taxes, should be included in the distributional tables when assessing Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on people making less than $400,000. But the amounts are relatively minor. Moreover, in the Ways and Means Committee bill, people making around $50,000 still have a tax cut in the years immediately after implementation.
McCarthy is able to claim that taxes will be increased for people at this income level in part only because of expiring tax provisions in the 2017 bill he helped craft. Republicans for years have cried foul when Democrats cited figures for 2027, after individual tax cuts lapsed, so turnabout is not fair play.
McCarthy and other GOP House members claiming, with vituperative language, that Biden has violated his $400,000 promise earn Three Pinocchios.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Voters support all of the policies of the $3.5 trillion build back better reconciliation bill.

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2021/9/1/voters-support-provisions-build-back-better-bill

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Monday morning insanity.

The hard right is in favor of session because of gays and transgender bathrooms.

A new poll from the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics finds that large portions of the American public now favor blue and red states going their own ways to form separate countries. The survey results, writes political scientist Larry Sabato, highlight the “deep, wide and dangerous divides” between Trump and Biden voters, presaging a new secession movement. But the schism was already evident in the increasing number of state and local officials enacting laws and policies that ban travel and restrict commerce with other American places with governments they object to—a trend that the Covid-19 emergency has only deepened. In everything from tax policy to travel to contracting rules, a secession movement within the states has been building for years.

California recently banned any state-sponsored travel by its employees to Ohio, based on a 2016 law that imposes penalties on states that California officials deem to be discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender residents. At issue is Ohio’s new “conscience clause” law, which allows a medical provider to refuse to perform certain procedures, such as gender-transition surgery, if they violate a doctor’s religious or moral beliefs. The Golden State originally passed the 2016 legislation after North Carolina enacted a bill requiring people to use public bathrooms based on their birth gender. Five other states—Washington, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Connecticut—joined California in restricting commerce with North Carolina. Since then, the number of laws that allegedly run afoul of California’s 2016 measure have proliferated—and so have the bans. California now restricts government-financed travel in 18 other U.S. states containing 116 million people—including both Carolinas, both Dakotas, Texas, and Florida. Most recently, California applied its restrictions to states that require transgender athletes to participate in high school sports based on their birth gender—even though prominent LGBTQ athletes such as Martina Navratilova have endorsed a similar policy.




Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://www.city-journal.org/the-new-secession-movement

anonymous said...

Funny now how Lil Schitty who has abused me and others for on line polls and their lack of veracity now pushing the biased Rasmussen on line polls of being newsworthy......Hyoocrisy they name is Scott Johnson.....>BQWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Myballs said...

Liberals support the 3.5T bill. Moderate voters do not. That should be clear to everyone.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Toxic Trump?


Trump puts off 2024 campaign to avoid 'owning' GOP losses caused by 'toxic brand': report

John Wright

October 04, 2021

Former president Donald Trump considered publicly announcing a 2024 campaign for president in the wake of the U.S. military's withdrawal from Afghanistan in August, which led to widespread criticism of the Biden administration.

However, Trump's advisers reportedly convinced him not to announce yet for several reasons, the Washington Post reported Monday.

"Some of his advisers were concerned that Democrats might use his announcement in their effort to frame the midterm elections around his candidacy, potentially boosting their own turnout and hampering his plans if Republicans fall short next year," according to the Post.

One person familiar with the conversations told the newspaper, "The biggest point we drove home was that he doesn't want to own the midterms if we don't win back the House or Senate."

Instead, Trump has opted for a "strategy of winks and nods" with regard to a potential 2024 campaign. But an informal poll of his advisers in recent days revealed that 10 of 13 believe he will seek to recapture the White House — and the Post reports that he has been "constantly" telling people, "I'm running."

Nevertheless, Trump reportedly is aware that his potential candidacy is a "cause for concern" among some Republicans, as his approval rating has struggled to break 45 percent nationally.

"His toxic brand continues to turn off voters in the suburbs, according to strategists in battleground states. He faces a litany of other headaches, including investigations into his businesses in New York, and a probe into his role in the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection," the Post reports, adding that many of the GOP's top donors have told strategists they want a different nominee.

Bob Vander Plaats, CEO of The FAMiLY LEADER, an Iowa-based Christian group that has been hosting potential candidates, told the Post: "He has a deep and committed loyal base. But even in that deep and committed loyal base, there are many who don't think Trump should run again."

The Post reports that, "In a meeting just before the November election, he was shown polling that suggested his policies were popular — even as he was trailing."

"Trump, in a surprisingly self-deprecating move, people familiar with the meeting said, jokingly conceded the problem was him," according to the newspaper.

Myballs said...

Liberal activists are now chasing Kristin Senima into bathroom stalls. This is precisely the kind of obnoxious, in your face politics tbe left is using that is turning off much of the country. Senile might keep voting no just as a fuck you to these assholes.

Myballs said...

Senima

anonymous said...


Anonymous Myballs said...
Liberal activists are now chasing Kristin Senima into bathroom stalls.


BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!!!!! I bet you think that is true....typical of FB following fake news.....LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Commander-in-Thief Biden said...

Real Time Economics
https://mobile.twitter.com/WSJecon/status/1444474705570930690

“Real” wages—pay adjusted for inflation—for the lowest-earning tier of workers fell 0.5% in August from a year earlier. That contrasts with 2.1% annual growth in the two years before the pandemic. https://on.wsj.com/3i0vy7K



As they say at NASCAR and across America

FJB

Anonymous said...

Roger always runs from his posts.

Roger, believes that passing a 3.5 Trillion dollars tax dollar spending spree will create "hundreds of thousands of union jobs"

Give us the Dollar amount those union workers will pay in in taxes each year?

You got nothing., NO supporting data.

Commander-in-Thief Biden said...

Arthur Schwartz

VIDEO:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1444666221618733058

Punchbowl News’ @bresreports: Democrats on the Hill say Biden’s team is “incredibly toxic, they don’t know what they’re doing.”

The adults are back!



incredibly toxic

FACT CHECK - TRUE

Commander-in-Thief Biden said...


* Well this was on CNN so it may be FAKE NEWS but likely was "unexpected"

ROFLMFAO !!!

Commander-in-Thief Biden said...


Myballs said...
Liberal activists are now chasing Kristin Senima into bathroom stalls.


Christina Pushaw
https://twitter.com/ChristinaPushaw/status/1444856206506463235

Filming someone in a bathroom without consent is a class 5 felony in Arizona. In a sovereign country governed by the rule of law, the illegal immigration activist at ASU would be prosecuted for that crime and deported. Convicted criminals do not have a "pathway to citizenship."


Now that would be true justice

Of course they would just come right back

Commonsense said...

BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!!!!! I bet you think that is true....typical of FB following fake news.....LOLOLOLOLOLOL

There's pictures.

Commonsense said...

A crisis created by the government.

Shipping containers are sitting at the dock and on ships at anchor waiting for trucks to take them. companies can't find enough drivers to take them off the docks.

Commander-in-Thief Biden said...

Catturd ™
https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1445010781070823424

If someone with a MAGA hat harassed a US Senator in a bathroom - the FBI would've already sent a 16 member SWAT team to raid their home this morning, arrested them, and held them without bond - and - it would be a national news story breathlessly covered 24/7 for 6 months.


Commander-in-Thief Biden said...

There's pictures.

There's video all over the internet

but apparently just not on FAKE NEWS sites

Commander-in-Thief Biden said...

Commonsense said...
A crisis created by the government.

Shipping containers are sitting at the dock and on ships at anchor waiting for trucks to take them. companies can't find enough drivers to take them off the docks.


Another Biden fuckup

Now he's destroying our supply chains and mandating companies fire workers while there are critical shortages in the midst of a pandemic

He must be doing this on purpose

FJB

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commander-in-Thief Biden said...

Drew Hernandez

Not the bathroom stall VIDEO:
https://twitter.com/DrewHLive/status/1444380308183437312

BROOKLYN NYC: Black Americans gather to oppose jäb mandates and they are PISSED @RealAmVoice

Get More News: http://bit.ly/gorav


it's boiling

Building Back Bitter

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Right-wing media outlets like Fox News, Newsmax and Breitbart News have a long history of downplaying the terrorist threat posed by far-right White nationalists, white supremacists and militia groups — even after the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol Building. But media outlets like MSNBC have been giving the threat the attention that it merits, and when MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace recently featured Kristofer Goldsmith — CEO of the intelligence firm Spaverius — on her show, he warned that the problem is showing no signs of letting up.

Goldsmith told Wallace, a Never Trump conservative who served in the Bush Administration, "Every failed coup is just practice. What's, I think, most disturbing, to people now is that it's become out in the public."

The Oath Keepers, an extremist militia group, were among the insurrectionists who attacked the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6. And Goldsmith discussed their recruiting efforts during his MSNBC appearance.

Goldsmith warned, "The Oath Keepers are an organization that's primarily vying for not just military service members, veterans, but also, police. These are people who have a warped sense of patriotism, who believe that fighting against the government, against their fellow Americans is somehow patriotic…. What's disappointing to me is to see people using.gov and .mil e-mail addresses to sign up to be one of these members of an unlawful militia."

The Spaverius CEO went on to call out Fox News for downplaying the violence that occurred on January 6.

"Over on Fox News," Goldsmith told Wallace, "January 6 is no big deal. And that is the most popular channel on all military bases all over the world right now, because they use Nielsen ratings. They say, 'Oh well, Fox News is popular. So, we have to show it to the troops.'

anonymous said...

Give us the Dollar amount those union workers will pay in in taxes each y


BWAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! Probably a shit load more than an unemployed goat fucker pays.....LOLOLOLOLOL Asshole!!!!

anonymous said...


BROOKLYN NYC: Black Americans gather to oppose jäb mandates and they are PISSED @RealAmVoice


BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!!!! SO FUCKING WHAT....MANDATES WORK.....As big companies like tyson who have a mandate are over 90% vaxed and still rising!!!!!!!!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Good morning news

Good morning. New Covid cases in the U.S. have fallen by more than a third in the past month.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Captain Kirk is rocketing into space this month — boldly going where no other sci-fi actors have gone.

Jeff Bezos’ space travel company, Blue Origin, announced Monday that William Shatner will blast off from West Texas on Oct. 12.

At age 90, Shatner will become the oldest person in space. He’ll join three others — two of them paying customers — aboard a Blue Origin capsule. It will be the company’s second launch with a crew.

Bezos was on the debut flight in July, along with his brother and the youngest and oldest to fly in space. Shatner will break that upper threshold by six years.

"I’ve heard about space for a long time now. I’m taking the opportunity to see it for myself. What a miracle,” Shatner said in a statement.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Sleepy Joe Biden was absolutely correct.



The Unexpected, Predictable End of the War in AfghanistanThe bloody, tumultuous withdrawal from Afghanistan was a predictable disaster. It was also an incredible, surprising anti-war victory.

.

The upsides of leaving are invisible: money not spent, American deaths not incurred, backlash not inspired. The costs of leaving were visible and photogenic: desperate mobs at the airport in Kabul, weeping girls donning chadri, Taliban thugs posing with stolen American gear. Those costs were real, but they were largely costs of the U.S. presence in the first place.

Even in the midst of the messy departure, the U.S. armed forces managed a rather impressive feat: At the August 30 Pentagon press briefing where the official end of American engagement in Afghanistan was announced, General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. described the emergency evacuation. "Since August the 14th, over an 18-day period, U.S. military aircraft have evacuated more than 79,000 civilians from Hamid Karzai International Airport," including 6,000 Americans and 73,500 others, said McKenzie. "In total, U.S. and coalition aircraft combined to evacuate more than 123,000 civilians, which were all enabled by U.S. military service members who were securing and operating the airfield." This is incredible work—achievable only once the goals were simple, clear, and agreed upon, the opposite of the conditions faced by our armed forces for decades in Afghanistan.

My baseline assumptions of government incompetence were both validated and undermined by the way the withdrawal played out. Honest hawks must be forced to contend with the through-the-looking-glass version of my cynical plight: How could armed forces so disastrously ill-informed and ill-prepared for withdrawal ever have managed to pacify and rebuild a nation as challenging as Afghanistan in the first place?

Old habits die hard, and even now I am not convinced the war is fully over, though the spectacular conflagration U.S. forces left in their wake will make it more difficult to reverse course at this point.

The president doesn't seem inclined to second thoughts, however. "This decision about Afghanistan is not only about Afghanistan," said Biden in his August 31 remarks. "It's about ending an era of major military missions to rebuild other countries." It remains to be seen if this is true. My cynicism may yet be rescued by fresh new foreign adventurism. But at least for now, a forever war has unexpectedly ended in the most predictable way possible.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://reason.com/2021/10/04/the-unexpected-predictable-end-of-the-war-in-afghanistan/

rrb said...



Roger, believes that passing a 3.5 Trillion dollars tax dollar spending spree will create "hundreds of thousands of union jobs"


This bullshit gets peddled every time the left pisses away a mountain of fucking taxpayer $$$.

Same with the "shovel-ready" jobs 0linsky laughed out loud about.

Commander-in-Thief Biden said...

Emerald Robinson

VIDEO:
https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1444812222027419652

Nobody elected this little tyrant. Nobody trusts him anymore. Nobody believes a word that he says. It’s time for him to disappear.


Breaking911

DR. FAUCI ON VACCINE MANDATES:

“There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society."


FJB

and FF

rrb said...


“There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society."


Really.

Scouring the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights I found this exactly NOWHERE.


anonymous said...

Scouring the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights I found this exactly NOWHERE.

Which is why you are a member in good standing with the proud boys.....too stupid for your own good....>BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Commonsense said...

There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society."

You can't give is up. It's an unalienable right bestowed by God. (I.e. natural rights). A government who suppresses these rights is a tyrannical government.

All of your rights are bestowed by God (or nature if you prefer). The Constitution simply protects those rights.Defining those powers that government can and cannot have.

Commonsense said...

*You can't give it up

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The Supreme Court will be the most important issue in history this year and so.




  

HILL.TV

COURT BATTLESOctober 04, 2021 - 06:00 AM EDTFive issues to watch as new Supreme Court term unfoldsBY JOHN KRUZEL190TWEET SHARE MORE

0:07 / 0:33

The Supreme Court term that opens Monday may reveal just how far the 6-3 conservative court is willing to go to reshape American life.

The upcoming term could see abortion access dramatically narrowed and the right to carry a gun outside the home enshrined as the law of the land. The justices in coming months will also address clashes with major implications for U.S. national security and the free exercise of religion.

ADVERTISING

The court term is already shaping up to be a blockbuster, even as the justices continue to add new cases to their docket. Here are five issues to watch as the term unfolds. 

Abortion access

The justices on Dec. 1 will hear arguments over Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, a case that poses a direct challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that first recognized a right to abortion.

In the nearly five decades since the landmark Roe decision, opponents have tried to narrow legal protections for abortion. But it was not until the court’s dramatic shift to the right under former President Trump that conservatives felt that bold action by the court was within reach.

Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has been overshadowed by legal challenges to Texas’s even more restrictive prohibition on most abortions. This summer the justices voted 5-4 to let the Texas measure to take effect, allowing the state to outlaw abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected, around six weeks of pregnancy.

A decision in the Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, is expected by late June, just months before the 2022 midterm elections.

anonymous said...

You can't 'gve is up. It's an unalienable right bestowed by God. (I.e. natural rights).


YOU MEAN LIKE A WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE? CRAMPS?????? You are the one who advocates Gov't creating laws to ban a women right to her own self!!!!!!!!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Gun control and Second Amendment

The justices on Nov. 3 will hear arguments over a New York gun control measure that challengers say infringes on their Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home.

The New York law at issue gives discretion to licensing officials over whether to approve concealed carry permits. The lawsuit arose after an official denied two New York residents’ requests for unrestricted carry licenses, saying the applicants had not demonstrated a “proper cause” to carry handguns at all times. 

The Biden administration has thrown its weight behind New York and urged the court to defer to the longstanding practice of allowing legislatures to place reasonable limits on firearms to protect public safety.

The case has drawn considerable outside interest, both from firearms advocates who want to see the justices use the case to expand gun rights and from states and gun control groups who warn that public safety could be imperiled if regulatory authority is rolled back.

Religious liberty  

The justices on Dec. 8 will hear a clash over a Maine education policy that bars religious K-12 schools from receiving state-funded tuition aid.

Maine law gives school-age children the right to access free public education. But because many rural areas lack a public secondary school, students have the option to attend nearby qualifying private schools at taxpayers’ expense, so long as those schools are not religious.

This exclusion prompted a legal challenge from three sets of Maine parents, who argue that barring their preferred schools from receiving state tuition aid because of a religious affiliation violates the U.S. Constitution.

The justices in the coming months are slated to hear another religious liberty case, this time involving a death row inmate. John Ramirez, who was sentenced to death for the brutal slaying of a man during a 2004 robbery spree, claims that Texas is poised to execute him in a manner that would violate his religious rights.  

The dispute concerns Texas’s denial of Ramirez’s request that his spiritual advisor be allowed to lay hands on him and audibly pray inside the death chamber while Ramirez is executed. 

The Maine parents and death row inmate may find a sympathetic audience in a conservative majority court that has been generally favorable in responding to religious liberty claims.

National security and post-9/11 response

The justices will hear two clashes over the U.S. government’s power to keep under wraps information related to controversial post-9/11 measures. Both of the upcoming cases implicate the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine that permits the executive branch to conceal sensitive information that would endanger national security if publicly disclosed. 

One case, FBI v. Fazaga, arose after a group of Muslim men in California filed a lawsuit alleging the FBI illegally surveilled them in the mid-2000s solely on the basis of their religion. That dispute concerns whether the state secrets privilege should effectively scuttle their litigation. 

A second case, U.S. v. Zubaydah, deals with whether the privilege should bar a Guantánamo Bay detainee and CIA torture victim from accessing information related to alleged clandestine CIA activities.

The Biden administration in both cases is arguing for a broad interpretation of the privilege.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Boston Marathon bomber and capital punishment

Fate of abortion access looms over new Supreme Court termAlyssa Milano says it's the 'most dangerous time to be a woman in...

The Biden administration on Oct. 13 will urge the justices to reinstate the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

The government’s legal position, an apparent break with then-candidate Joe Biden’s opposition to capital punishment, is that a lower appeals court erred when it vacated Tsarnaev’s death sentence.

At issue is whether the trial court did an adequate job assessing the jury’s potential for bias and the extent to which Tsarnaev was acting under the influence of his older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the other perpetrator of the bombing, was killed during an ensuing manhunt.

Commonsense said...

Altyssa Milano is a drama Queen. Worst thing to happen to pro-abortion activist is that abortion regulation devolves to the states. Let the people decide.

The issue is whether Tsarnaev can make decisions for himself as an adult. Even though there was no mental deficiency found. If the court rules in Tsarnaev's favor then the idea if personal accountability will go by the wayside.

Commonsense said...

Maine law gives school-age children the right to access free public education. But because many rural areas lack a public secondary school, students have the option to attend nearby qualifying private schools at taxpayers’ expense, so long as those schools are not religious.

This exclusion prompted a legal challenge from three sets of Maine parents, who argue that barring their preferred schools from receiving state tuition aid because of a religious affiliation violates the U.S. Constitution.


Specifically the 1st (Protecting religious freedom( and the 14th (equal protection)

You can't treat religious schools differently secular schools when it comes to government funding.

Commonsense said...

One case, FBI v. Fazaga, arose after a group of Muslim men in California filed a lawsuit alleging the FBI illegally surveilled them in the mid-2000s solely on the basis of their religion. That dispute concerns whether the state secrets privilege should effectively scuttle their litigation.

The Muslim men will prevail.

C.H. Truth said...

Right-wing media outlets like Fox News, Newsmax and Breitbart News have a long history of downplaying the terrorist threat posed by far-right White nationalists, white supremacists and militia groups — even after the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol Building.

Perhaps because the only casualty of the Jan 6th riot was an unarmed protester who was posing no physical threat and was shot point blank in the chest just for being there... and even though Capital police have spent millions and the FBI has attempted multiple sting operations, the only subsequent violence was a middle eastern guy who run his vehicle into the fence.

When there is no actual violence there is no threat. You cannot just make one up and deciding on your own to spent millions in unnecessary extra security does not make a threat any more real.

Moreover the FBI admitted that they found no evidence that there was never any coordination or planning from any of the groups (Proud boys, oath keepers, etc) in connection with the Capital Riot.


So the better question here, Roger...

Is why MSNBC and others are literally making up a threat out of thin air.

Not why other outlets are reporting reality.

Commonsense said...

The dispute concerns Texas’s denial of Ramirez’s request that his spiritual advisor be allowed to lay hands on him and audibly pray inside the death chamber while Ramirez is executed.

Ramirez will prevail.

Commonsense said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
Gun control and Second Amendment
The justices on Nov. 3 will hear arguments over a New York gun control measure that challengers say infringes on their Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home.


The law will be overturned or severely modified. It's none of the government's businesses to "show cause" for person who legally own guns. It will be seen as an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms.

Commonsense said...

First case on the docket is a water dispute between Mississippi. (The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on dispute between states)