From the additional customers who otherwise couldn’t afford to buy their product absent government subsidy. Oh and increasing premiums and deductibles for everyone.
Sarcasm or no, the adherence to religious doctrine does not and should not preclude the adherent from political criticism, especially when that doctrine informs policy and politics.
lets call it what it is, an unconstitutional religious test.
if the Senate wants to ask questions about cases like Roe, ACA, Brown or any other thing, they are free to do so, and to oppose based on the positions of the nominee. And I am not a supporter of the crap Ginsburg herself started in refusing to answer questions because they hypothetically could come up in the court. If a nominee refuses to answer, it should be considered grounds for rejection. The Senate has the duty to make an informed decision. They are not put on the court for their personality no matter what Soto thinks, Delving into religious beliefs is out of bounds.
Public positions which affect law and enforcement are not private issues of conscience. It is not a ‘religious test’ to critically examine the effect of any kind of public declarations upon jurisprudence.
A persons religious beliefs are not a “public” position. Questions about religion are out of bounds. period. They can discern the same information about how someone might vote by asking and rejecting out of hand the “Ginsburg rule” dodge. The Senate allowed Ginsburg to dodge, they should not have. They should have rejected her and let future nominees know the Senate is not to be toyed with.
Questioning a nominee about their religious beliefs is not a religious test.
A religious test would be a law prohibiting people of certain faiths from holding office or a prescribed oath of office such as “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”
A Senator may ask any questions they want and act on the answers as they see fit.
Their followers don’t care. They must harass, accuse and obstruct, that’s all they have. False accusations are better than no accusations. They will smear Barrett with something, bank on it…
Democrats won’t attack her. She’ll get through and the Democrats will stick to the high road and/or victim card. Then they’ll add justices assuming they win the elections. There will be very little the Republicans can cry about when that happens. They still will, but there won’t be any fangs. I guess we’ll see how much two months or so of a favorable SC helps conservatives.
For some people COVID absolutely is a permanent illness and will cause lifelong complications for a great many of its casualties who happen to be fortunate enough to survive. Also, we still don’t know what all of the long-term complications will end up being by those who survive it.
For example, the Mayo Clinic reports that long-term coronavirus symptoms and effects can include:
· Fatigue
· Shortness of breath
· Headache
· Cough
· Joint pain
· Damage to heart muscle
· Scar tissue in the alveoli of the lungs
· Blood clots
These long-term complications affect not just the health of coronavirus survivors, but also their ability to work. So this begs the question: could the lasting effects of the coronavirus constitute a legally recognized disability? Yes, and this article will discuss how.