.@SenatorSinema prior to slavery being outlawed: "I agree that human rights aren't working well. But the way to fix that is to fix slaveholder's behavior, not to change the rules."
The ENTIRE FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT is SPECIFICALLY to "change the rules" (i.e., pass legislation) in order to "change people's behavior."
It's LITERALLY PART OF HER JOB.
Otherwise what's the point of ANY law??
"There's been a lot of murders lately! Perhaps we should outlaw it?"
@SenatorSinema: "Nah...we just need to change people's behavior so they don't murder people."
There MAY be a valid argument for keeping the filibuster in place (I don't think so, but it's possible)...but "we should change people's behavior instead" isn't it.
HEY, ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE EXPERTS: @SenatorSinema was a state a state Senator for 2 years before being elected to Congress. Guess what state DOESN'T have a filibuster? ARIZONA. Does anyone know whether she ever complained about it then?
In fact, only 14 state legislatures have a filibuster...and neither Arizona nor West Virginia are among them. Both @SenatorSinema *and* @Sen_JoeManchin served in the state senate before being elected to statewide office. Did EITHER of them demand one then? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuste…
Sinema served in the U.S. *House* before being elected to the Senate. Did she demand that 261 House members (60%) support any bill before she'd vote for it?
What if Dems held 60 Senate seats? Would she insist that any legislation still get 8 Republicans to support it as well?
"Initially, a successful vote of cloture required UNANIMOUS APPROVAL by the Senate; this threshold was reduced to 2/3 of the chamber in 1917."
If Sinema had been in the U.S. Senate at the time would she have protested "changing the rules" then as well?
I don't know what the solution is to Sen. Manchin & Sen. Sinema for the next year and a half...but if you don't want them to have so much power over the Senate in 2023 & beyond, the solution is to FLIP MORE SENATE SEATS BLUE: secure.actblue.com/donate/senateb…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There have been so many false alarms from SCOTUS re. announcing their #TexasFoldEm#ACA lawsuit decision that I’m not even linking to my explainer this time. But...yeah, they’re supposed to announce more opinions tomorrow morning.
There’s apparently 24 more cases to decide on in the next 28 days, so theoretically they could announce like 1-2 per day and still hold off until June 30th for the ACA case.
For those wondering about the timeline in a worst-case scenario, it’s not pretty. This is from last fall: acasignups.net/21/02/19/if-ac…
📣 VIRGINIA: OK, does someone more familiar with Virginia demographics/politics want to take a look at this for me? VA doesn't seem to make ANY sense...not only is there no obvious partisan pattern, but there's no pattern along population size either: acasignups.net/21/06/02/virgi…
Virginia's data is missing for 9 counties, but all of them are pretty small and they range across the partisan spectrum so I don't think that explains it. There's also an unusually high % of "county unknown" but it's not THAT high (9.6%).
Possible data error?
OK this has GOT to be a data error...according to the CDC data, there's like 30 counties in Virginia which haven't even broken 10% fully vaxxed yet. I can't fathom that.
Have any think pieces been written about the ethical implications of Aquaman forcing dolphins to do his bidding? When the Giant Eagles were sent in by Gandalf to rescue Frodo & Sam, they only did so because they *agreed* to do so.
As an aside, that also answers the question of "Why didn't they just have the eagles fly the entire Fellowship to Mordor in the first place?"
It was an incredibly dangerous journey and they would've been sitting ducks...er, eagles.
They only agreed to swoop in for a couple of quick rescue missions (Gandalf, then later Frodo/Sam)...in & out, they wouldn't get bogged down in combat, etc.
⚠️⚠️⚠️ HERE WE GO AGAIN: The fate of the #ACA & healthcare coverage for 30 million people (and healthcare protections for everyone else) could be decided...THIS MORNING: acasignups.net/21/05/31/here-…
NOTE: I plan on live-tweeting this morning's SCOTUS announcements (well, technically I'll be parroting @SCOTUSblog's live-tweets) which start at 10am, but I have to leave for an appointment at around 10:30am, so if they end up issuing more than 2-3 opinions I'll have to cut out.
As many people have noted, SCOTUS didn't issue the last 2 major #ACA decisions until the end of June (June 28th for NFIB v. Sebelius, June 25th for King v. Burwell), so there's a *very* good chance they'll wait until then for the #TexasFoldEm case as well...but who knows?
There’s several types of non-ACA plans available on the individual market. Some are worse than others but none of them include most ACA protections:
—“short-term plans”
—“association plans”
—“grandfathered plans”
—“grandmothered (transitional) plans”
—“farm bureau plans”
...oh, and “sharing ministry” plans, where you have to sign a pledge to live your life by a moral code (or at least you used to).
Some of each of these types of plans have a long history of fraud and scammyness...and in most cases there’s not much regulators can do.