Can someone explain what the big deal about Kav and Roe vs. Wade is?  Like are they going to rehear the case and change it's decision since Kav doesn't believe in abortion?

Or are the left just finding something to complain about and crying over a nothing (as in it can't get another hearing)?

I remember when Trump was on his campaign and the gays were all upset that he will take away their rights.  Then when asked in an interview what he plans on doing about gays, he replied "nothing, the courts already ruled".

Many SJW"s are concerned about Roe.

TERM LIMITS.  Two terms, just like the President and Vice President.  Then, you have to find a job or run for a different elected position.  If you switch chambers (House <=> Senate), then you can do 4 terms (2 per).  After that, it's President or VP.  In theory, you could be VP and then President -- 4 terms total.

That sounds like a reasonable limitation.  Incumbents have too much power to leave "changing of the guards" up to the voters.

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."  -- Mark Twain

Term limits are a great start.  Also, have their benefits (healthcare, after leaving office, etc) be subject to approval by each individual state.  No more letting the "rats guard the cheese".  Also set rules for consequences of non-performance.  Can't get the budget set?  Don't get to end the session for their breaks or get paid.  I bet that solves a lot of the log jam when it comes time for passing budgets each year.  In the past, it was like clockwork.  Even numbered election years, budgets get passed way ahead of time.  Odd numbered non-election years, budget issues drag on and then talks of sequestration, government shut down, etc.  Do your damn job! 

Term limits are a great start.  Also, have their benefits (healthcare, after leaving office, etc) be subject to approval by each individual state.  No more letting the "rats guard the cheese".  Also set rules for consequences of non-performance.  Can't get the budget set?  Don't get to end the session for their breaks or get paid.  I bet that solves a lot of the log jam when it comes time for passing budgets each year.  In the past, it was like clockwork.  Even numbered election years, budgets get passed way ahead of time.  Odd numbered non-election years, budget issues drag on and then talks of sequestration, government shut down, etc.  Do your damn job!

The things you mention (like budgets) that are in the Constitution or set in statute should be treated like all other laws, including penalties.  Don't pass the budget on time?  EVERYONE pays a hefty fine, not just the ones who want to make political hay out of a fight.  That'll entice everyone to negotiate in good faith so they all are spared the humiliation and expense of that penalty.

It's the law.  There should be consequences for failing to adhere to it.

The things you mention (like budgets) that are in the Constitution or set in statute should be treated like all other laws, including penalties.  Don't pass the budget on time?  EVERYONE pays a hefty fine, not just the ones who want to make political hay out of a fight.  That'll entice everyone to negotiate in good faith so they all are spared the humiliation and expense of that penalty.

It's the law.  There should be consequences for failing to adhere to it.

Yeah, pretty much what I had in mind.  Like the class that has to all stay because of a couple of disruptive assholes.  Like that whole filibuster thing.  All of that stupidity drive me nuts.  Yeah, that tactic and others serve a purpose, but all get in the way of what they're supposed to be there for.

I wonder if there were term limits, then people would submit a BS bill 50,000 pages.

I wonder if there were term limits, then people would submit a BS bill 50,000 pages.

ACA was initially 20K pages that nobody read before voting for it (all Dems, no Repubs).  After passing, the additional implementation documents had to be at least that much.

Term limits won't make any difference in the size of bills submitted.

In case you missed the latest from Diane Feinstein, this sums it up ....

The worst they MAY have (big assumption that it's not "made up") is that in high school he may have copped a feel or kissed some girl "without her consent". Who knows, maybe he called her "a bitch". Maybe she got drunk and "something happened" and now all these years later she has realized that she had not given consent. That would have been AT LEAST 35 years ago... 1983 or earlier! JFC! These people are out of their fucking minds. Again. 

The worst they MAY have (big assumption that it's not "made up") is that in high school he may have copped a feel or kissed some girl "without her consent". Who knows, maybe he called her "a bitch". Maybe she got drunk and "something happened" and now all these years later she has realized that she had not given consent. That would have been AT LEAST 35 years ago... 1983 or earlier! JFC! These people are out of their fucking minds. Again. 

Latest post I saw said he and another unidentified boy locked a 17 yr old  girl in a room during a party, where she "felt threatened", but was able to get out.

The author of the letter is also unidentified.

So, two teens at a party may have done something juvenile at a party that another teen didn't like, and nobody was hurt.

Get that man in handcuffs!!   

Latest post I saw said he and another unidentified boy locked a 17 yr old  girl in a room during a party, where she "felt threatened", but was able to get out.

The author of the letter is also unidentified.

So, two teens at a party may have done something juvenile at a party that another teen didn't like, and nobody was hurt.

Get that man in handcuffs!!   

Whatever it was, and it was likely something innocuous in in terms of 1981, or whenever, high school antics, for Feinstein to turn it over to "federal investigators" is utterly preposterous. But what else would we expect from her? 

Whatever it was, and it was likely something innocuous in in terms of 1981, or whenever, high school antics, for Feinstein to turn it over to "federal investigators" is utterly preposterous. But what else would we expect from her? 

Not much different than Harry Reid repeatedly lying on the Senate floor that Romney hadn't paid his income taxes for 10 years.  When asked later if he regretted making those false statements, he said, "He didn't win, did he?"

The ends justifies the means.

Whatever it was, and it was likely something innocuous in in terms of 1981, or whenever, high school antics, for Feinstein to turn it over to "federal investigators" is utterly preposterous. But what else would we expect from her? 

I read a report from a journalist who asked the FBI about this report. FBI is going to include the information from Feinstein in Kavanaugh's background file for the White House, but they will not be opening any investigations into the accusations.  At worst, it would be a local;/state investigation, assuming the statute of limitations hasn't run.

Maybe Feinstein can have her driver do some digging.  I understand he has contacts ....

Give us an example of the exact wording of a law or rule that would change what we saw during the Kavanuagh confirmation hearings (I mean other than limiting the time for each member to have the floor). I don't think "Be nice. And only ask questions that are REALLY relevant." will cut it. Not even a little. Nor would "Don't be a dumbass (Mazie)".

I wasn't speaking so much about the Kavanaugh hearing rather I was talking about congress overall when I said they need an overhaul.

But specifically about SCOTUS nominee hearings, Republicans played the game when Obama nominated Merrick Garland. Now democrats are playing the game right back. I don't know what specific law or rule change would have made a difference to the Kavanaugh hearing. Maybe sets of rules that made clear obligations of congressmen. Time limitations could be something put on the table. Maybe preliminary vote on whether to hold an extended hearing which could avoid a long lengthy hearing if indeed the majority had their minds made up.

Can someone explain what the big deal about Kav and Roe vs. Wade is?  Like are they going to rehear the case and change it's decision since Kav doesn't believe in abortion?

Some of it is people thinking the sky is falling but some of it is a legitimate possibility. A number of conservative states have passed laws that restrict abortion in a roundabout way and these laws are being challenged from what I understand. For example laws that add a lot of regulations in the name of safety that end up making it too expensive to keep most abortion clinics open anymore. These cases could work their way all the way up to the supreme court in which case the SCOTUS could have an opportunity to rule and write a majority opinion which could end up overturning some part of Roe V. Wade.

I don't know how significant a chance it is that Roe V Wade gets overturned but I think people are concerned because it is a possibility.

Some of it is people thinking the sky is falling but some of it is a legitimate possibility. A number of conservative states have passed laws that restrict abortion in a roundabout way and these laws are being challenged from what I understand. For example laws that add a lot of regulations in the name of safety that end up making it too expensive to keep most abortion clinics open anymore. These cases could work their way all the way up to the supreme court in which case the SCOTUS could have an opportunity to rule and write a majority opinion which could end up overturning some part of Roe V. Wade.

I don't know how significant a chance it is that Roe V Wade gets overturned but I think people are concerned because it is a possibility.

When Roe was decided on, we didn't have the scientific knowledge about fetal development and how to determine if a "clump of cells" can be classified as a life or not.  Now that we do, there should at least be a review of the merits of the case and see if it's not reasonable to reevaluate the very real chance Roe was a mistake.

Even "Roe" herself said she wished she'd never won the case based on the results it created.  As a matter of law, I think the rationale used was also faulty, in that there is no Constitutionally mandated "right to privacy" enumerated anywhere in it, and there are plenty of other laws (recreational drug use, etc) which violate the tenant "my body, my choice".

People are afraid because they shoehorned a decision into the law, and now they don't want it questioned for fear it'll be exposed as an error.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh, 53, said in a statement Friday.

Okay... now let's see what "she said". Come on. Make the "statement"/"letter" public, Get this person (presumably a woman) to come forward publicly and substantiate her claims, preferably under oath. She can name the names of the other people that may have been present and they can verify her story... or his story. I'm sure she can remember who else was there, it was only 35 or 36 or 37 years ago. Just do it.

Are we forgetting that he went to an all boys prep school.  Doesn't mean he had zero contact with other high school females, but reduces the exposure.

For Roe vs. Wade, I look at it like the 2a.  It's up to you if you want to have one or not.  But don't take away the option just because you don't believe in it.

For Roe vs. Wade, I look at it like the 2a.  It's up to you if you want to have one or not.  But don't take away the option just because you don't believe in it.

Uh, there is one minor difference. "Having" a gun doesn't mean someone (innocent) dies (I mean I know it DOES mean that according to the gun grabbers, but I mean in "reality"), whereas "having" an abortion DOES mean someone dies, at least in cases at a certain level of development (and the current inclusion of "partial birth abortions" as legal means that those favoring that position have to argue that a few seconds before birth at 8 or 9 months the "clump of cells" has no rights, but a few seconds later (outside the mother) it does (well, except most of them believe in euthanasia as well, so I guess they don't ascribe real rights to even babies). Okay, never mind. Yeah, you're right, having a gun and having an abortion are the same thing. So when is the government going to give away $500 MILLION dollars a year for us to have guns? I'd call it "Planned Armory".

Best thing Ive heard:

Unlike Planned Parenthood, everyone who goes into the NRA headquarters comes out alive.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh, 53, said in a statement Friday.

Okay... now let's see what "she said". Come on. Make the "statement"/"letter" public, Get this person (presumably a woman) to come forward publicly and substantiate her claims, preferably under oath. She can name the names of the other people that may have been present and they can verify her story... or his story. I'm sure she can remember who else was there, it was only 35 or 36 or 37 years ago. Just do it.

Probably that old fugly ho Feinstein fantasizing again....