same first name?
1 Like
Yes, a few including 2 in my state. He didn’t like how the GA Governor and SOS refused to overturn the election so he endorsed members of cult 45 instead who lost their GOP primaries. I know there have been multiple other Trump nominees who lost, so that made me google.
NPR did a tracker:
2 Likes
I realize that cults are generally a bad thing…but that’s insulting to cults.
Ron Johnson lets his true feelings show:
Yes, that was Missouri. I hadn’t realized that he had actually called and congratulated both candidates before endorsing “ERIC”. (I knew they were both named Eric and he didn’t put a last name on his endorsement… just didn’t realize he’d called them both.)
What a jerk. In light of that new-to-me information… maybe saying that Vance kisses his ass is only tied for a new low among candidates Trump is supporting.
1 Like
Probably a lot of liberals that feel this way too.
His re-election campaign openly called it an “epic troll”.
I fully don’t understand. Best I can figure is it just keeps Trump in the headlines for a while longer.
he has to be the worst senator sitting right now.
I submit for your consideration McConnell followed by Graham. The former being IMO one of the best masterminds behind stacking the SCOTUS, stonewalling many of Obama’s policies, a master of legal Senate procedural trickery, and a pile of other shit.
Honorable mention to Cruz as well as Johnson though.
He might be. But sadly he’s got a lot of competition for the title.
McConnell doesn’t buy into the Big Lie, which puts him well ahead of many of his coworkers.
1 Like
By buy into do you mean actually believe or pretend to believe?
Which one is worse?
1 Like
IMO McConnell was the most important factor in stacking the SCOTUS, even exceeding Trump, as well as coordinating Republicans in factors like Senatorial procedure/voting. Trump was obviously a necessary piece, but when talking about actual governance Trump mostly did what he was told IMO. As a good example I don’t think Trump was smart enough to put the citizenship question on the census to harm minorities. He went rogue a lot but I sincerely think his various advisor like Bannon, Kushner, and the whole crew steered him. I really don’t think Trump was looking at judge appointments. The Federalist Society fed them directly to him.
Now we’re in a post-RvW world, and Graham is introducing legislation for a federal 15-week ban on abortion after SCOTUS kicked it back to the states.
In the end though, we’re all comparing which is the smelliest pile of feces.
2 Likes
Absolutely, no question. I’m not saying he’s my favorite Senator or anything. But it’s noteworthy that he refused to even pay lip service to the Big Lie at any point in time.
1 Like
Did they kick it to the states or say that it’s not a constitutional issue?
Like, can the Democrats simply pass a federal law saying that access to abortion cannot be restricted? (I mean, I know they’ve got the filibuster to contend with, but if they could theoretically get the legislation passed, I don’t think it would be a constitutional issue, would it?)
I’m not sure McConnell cared about Trump (well, actually I’d say he actively disliked him) and was fully ready to pivot back to “block anything Biden wants to do”.
I consider the two of them work friends. I do work you need and you do work I need, we may play nice but the moment one of us leaves this company I am deleting you from my phone.
McConnell hedged his position to the base by saying Trump did have a part in 1/6 but he thinks a former President cannot be prosecuted. Trump called McConnell “a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack”. I think there was nothing between them but an alliance for common goals. Once Trump was a liability in McConnell’s mind he dropped him.
Texas now has a draconian ban on abortion. My state is looking to put in in our Constitution via a popular vote this year.
Essentially when the federal government does not legislate something, it belong to the states. In the event the federal gov’t legally passes a law about it (there’s a ton of caveats I am bypassing), the federal law applies. Think about how many states legalized marijuana but technically the federal government has it illegal so you can still be arrested in your legal state, depending who is arresting you and how they feel that day.
To directly answer your question, it’s my belief the federal gov’t can institute legal, free, no-reason abortions for anybody, or no abortions for anybody. There’d easily be legal challenges to either of those extremes and it would likely go all the way back to SCOTUS. However the 15-week ban is much easier to pass than no abortions ever. SCOTUS already rejected the precedent of right to privacy allowing the right to abortion. So what’s the difference?
With a monumental effort we could have a Constitutional Amendment making abortion legal for all at any time. That’s way harder to overturn than a law, but won’t happen for a long time.
I think we have too equal of a split in Congress (Senate, mainly) to propose either “allow” or “ban”, and even if that gets through, we have too many states that will not vote for either of those.
Constitutional amendments are not for “Halvsies.” They are for specific policies/ideas that have overwhelming national support to add to the Constitution for all American citizens to obey. That’s why it took so long to ban slavery.
Wiki is my friend:
Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:
- A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—if a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; or
- A majority vote of state delegations at a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. (This method has never been used.)
AND THEN:
To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either:
- The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or
- State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.
I was already aware of all of that… just wondering about whether a federal law legalizing abortion should (or would, which is admittedly a different question) be allowed to stand.