Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
‘We’re Going to Get Slaughtered’: Biden’s Poll Numbers Trigger Panic Mode for Democrats - Truth Press
‘We’re Going to Get Slaughtered’: Biden’s Poll Numbers Trigger Panic Mode for Democrats - Truth Press
-
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Senate votes to move forward with Jackson Supreme Court nomination after Judiciary Committee deadlock
Jackson is on track to be confirmed by the end of week
The Senate voted 53-47 Monday to advance Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination out of committee, inching her yet closer to final confirmation.
Sens. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted for the Monday "discharge motion," to bring Jackson's nomination from the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate. They also said in separate press releases that they will vote for her final confirmation.
The Senate is still multiple steps away from a final confirmation vote, which is expected to happen most likely on either Thursday or Friday.
Support from Romney, R-Utah, and Murkowski, R-Alaska, is major win for the White House after no Republicans voted for Jackson in the Senate Judiciary Committee. They joined Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in voting in the affirmative Monday. She announced last week that she would back Jackson.
Monday's vote also put all Democrats who hadn't officially announced their intention to vote for Jackson on the record on a vote related to the nomination, including Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. All remained voted to bring the nomination out of committee.
The vote on the discharge motion was needed because the Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked 11-11 on Jackson's nomination earlier Monday. In the 50-50 Senate, committees are evenly divided – and Republicans and Democrats split along party lines in the committee.
"This is the fourth time the Committee has voted on Judge Jackson in some capacity, a reflection of her extraordinary legal career," Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Monday ahead of the vote. "It’s the first time that the Committee has had the opportunity to advance the nomination of a Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court. This is an historic moment for this Committee, and for America."
"I think it's a sad day for the Republican Party," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told Fox News Digital of the united GOP opposition to Jackson in committee. "Everybody said she's superbly well qualified. Nobody really knew why they were voting against her except for the concocted outrage and meritless demagoguery, as one conservative columnist termed all the objections."
But regarding Murkowski and Romney, Blumenthal said, "I'm extremely gratified that more Republicans are showing that they're willing to consider this nomination on the merits and I think I would say also that by and large Republicans conducted themselves with great dignity and respect. There were some clearly disrespectful moments but maybe we're making progress toward bipartisanship which would be a very good thing."
The successful discharge vote is one of just a few steps remaining for Jackson to finally be confirmed – which barring something unforeseen appears likely.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is expected to file cloture on the nomination Tuesday, setting up a procedural vote to end debate on the Jackson nomination as early as Thursday or Friday. That vote could be followed almost immediately by a final confirmation vote.
Jackson will replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, who said he will step down at the end of the Supreme Court's current termComment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
House passes bill to cap insulin prices
The House of Representatives voted Thursday to approve legislation that would limit cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and Medicare. The vote was 232-193, with 12 Republican members joining their Democratic colleagues to pass the measure.
The Affordable Insulin Now Act would cap insulin prices at either $35 a month or 25% of an insurance plan's negotiated price — whichever is lower. The legislation would take effect in 2023 but its fate in the Senate remains unclear.
"This is a kitchen-table issue," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said to reporters ahead of the bill's passage on Thursday.
"One in four Americans is forced to skip or ration doses of insulin and that's life-threatening," she said, noting the legislation "paves the way" for further action on negotiating lower drug prices beyond insulin.
Advocates of the legislation point to data from the Health Care Cost Institute, an independent nonprofit that studies health care prices, which shows prices for insulin doubled between 2012 and 2016.
"No one should have to choose between taking their medication as prescribed and putting food on the table or a roof over their head," said Rep. Dan Kildee, one of three Democratic lawmakers who sponsored the legislation.
"As a father of a type 1 diabetic, I have seen firsthand how the high price of prescription drugs like insulin can harm patients and harm families," the Michigan Democrat said during debate on the House floor. "When my daughter turned 26 and got her own health insurance, there were months where she spent a third of her take-home pay because she's diabetic on staying alive."
Critics of the bill argue the cap alone doesn't do enough to solve the underlying problem of rising prescription drug prices.
"We want lower prices for drugs, particularly for insulin," said Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., during debate. "But instead of fixing a broken system, this bill aims to control it," he adding, calling the bill a "socialist plan."
House Democrats passed legislation in November as part of a broader spending package that would have enabled Medicare to negotiate lower prices for various prescription drugs.
Because that package remains stalled in the Senate, Democrats are working to more narrowly tackle making common drugs like insulin more affordable.
There is a similar bipartisan effort under way in the Senate but its path is unclear as Republicans have traditionally been opposed to price caps.Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Also I think the main problem is they need to get serious,Tough first time punnishments for any gun violation. In chicago every night and weekend there are multiple shootings and murders.The ones they catch already have long rap sheets and most all of them already are out on gun charges from a different crime. They just keep letting them out. There are lots of people who should not see the light of day again for the good of everyone who is a law abiding citizen.Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
What do you want the gun manufacturers to do? Install mind reading chips and not fire if the intent of the trigger pull is breaking a law? Please explain how Remington massacred children. Do we need to sue Boeing for all of the deaths that occurred on 9/11? By your logic we do and we need to restrict airplanes that could be used to kill people by not letting them fly.Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Sandy Hook families reach $73M settlement with Remington over school massacre
Families of Sandy Hook victims reached a $73 million settlement Tuesday in their lawsuit against Remington Arms, manufacturer of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle used to kill 20 kids and six staff members in the 2012 massacre.
The nine families brought a class-action suit in 2014 against Remington Arms, which made the weapon used in the mass shooting, claiming the gun-maker sought to sell the military-grade weapon to the mentally ill.
Remington had offered the families a $33 million settlement in July 2021, about $3.7 million per family, less than half of what ultimately will be doled out.
“Today is not about honoring our son Benjamin. Today is about how and why Ben died,” said Francine Wheeler, mother to 6-year-old Ben, who was killed in the massacre. “It is about what is right and what is wrong. Our legal system has given us some justice today, but David and I will never have true justice. True justice would be our fifteen-year-old healthy and here with us.”
... in this ground breaking lawsuit, gun manufactures can now be held accountable to how their products are marketed and sold.Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
The one big flaw in this right wing talking point is that airplanes are not designed for the sole purpose of killing. A guns only purpose is to kill something. Military guns are designed to kill people and the AR-15 was designed specifically to look like a military gun. All the spin in the world is not going to change that.Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
As I've said in the past, I've never owned a gun of any type in my life. With that said, after watching the violence by Black Lives Matter and the liberal politicians telling the cops to stand down, we need automatic weapons for protection. A pistol would have been useless against that mob. Fuck that.Adversity temporarily visits a strong man but stays with the weak for a lifetime.Comment
-
Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill
Explain to us exactly how you intend to physically get the guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies. Because until you can, the violence will continue.
BTW those with a criminal record are not allowed to legally purchase guns or even be in the same vehicle or room with a weapon in any jurisdiction in America. It is one of the rights they lose when convicted of a crime. In fact in most states even misdemeanor domestic violence will result in the loss of your rights to possess a weapon. Domestic Violence & The Lautenberg Amendment - Free Criminal Record Clearing and Expungement Information :: Free Criminal Record Clearing and Expungement InformationComment
-
Comment
Comment