Herb
Footballguy
Yeah I'm not reading through a Congressional bill. Although I am having a tidge of insomnia tonight, maybe I should...
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Right to Same-Sex Marriages (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The General
- Start date
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I don't blame you. I only did because, like you, I was a little suspicious that the story was that simple. Pretty sure you can scroll to Sec 5
djmich
Footballguy
I was just going to post that Republicans were dumb for just not supporting the bill. But if true then I guess that changes things although I have no idea what this specific act you reference does.
Why aren’t Republicans more vocal about this element?
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I’m very ignorant on how all of this works - I’ve heard of a line item veto. Can they not allow them to vote on each section separately- seems stupid if they can’t.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Most of us are; parliamentary rules are archaic and cumbersome.
They can only vote on what is in front of them. They had a bill with 7 sections, you vote on the bill with 7 sections. (The whole rollback thing is a reference to a Trump executive order that said, the secretaries of various federal agencies whose agencies deal with the issue of religious objections to contraception in whatever way should look at their rules and possibly change them to better protect religious liberty. )
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
(1) GENERAL APPLICATION.—Except as stated 22 under subsection (b), this Act supersedes and ap23 plies to the law of the Federal Government and each 24 State government, and the implementation of such 25 law, whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the date of en2 actment of this Act, and neither the Federal Govern3 ment nor any State government shall administer, 4 implement, or enforce any law, rule, regulation, 5 standard, or other provision having the force and ef6 fect of law that conflicts with any provision of this 7 Act, notwithstanding any other provision of Federal 8 law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration 9 Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.).
Terrible copy and paste, but for @Herb and others, this is the part in question.
Terrible copy and paste, but for @Herb and others, this is the part in question.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Thanks, probably worthy of a new thread but it still seems crazy to me. Doesn’t seem like it would be too difficult to let them vote on each section independently.
Herb
Footballguy
So, is this legitimately a "rollback" of that law as @NorvilleBarnesstated, or is it just stating that the new law supercedes that one with regard to this specific topic?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I took it to be more that 2nd one when I read it. I go a bit crosseyed trying to read these bills and SC rulings though, and have misread many things.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Yeah that's the original bill... introduced in the House by a congressmen, at the time, from New York, named Chuck Schumer.... you know, the paragon of current GOP leadership and policy.
Fun "did you know, " it was found unconstitutional as used against States, it passed pretty much unanimously in both houses, Alito goes into it alot in the Hobby Lobby case (think it was Alito) and it's more a process law then an active rights law of that makes sense.
A Quaker woman sued the Federal government after it passed saying that its against her religious liberty to pay federal income taxes and a violation of RFRA..... she lost.
It has a fun history. Nothing about the contraception bill repealed it from what I see.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
See the part that says: except as stated under subsection b below....? Here's section b:
(b) Limitations.—The provisions of this Act shall not supersede or otherwise affect any provision of Federal law relating to coverage under (and shall not be construed as requiring the provision of specific benefits under) group health plans or group or individual health insurance coverage or coverage under a Federal health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–7b(f))), including coverage provided under section 1905(a)(4)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(4)(C)) and section 2713 of Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–13).
(To cut to the chase of this conversation which I'm happy to have, the talking point that the GOP voted against this contraceptive bill because it rolled back, eliminated or did anything to Chuck Schumers bill from the 90s or Trump's Executive Order from 3 years ago is nonsense and the cowards of the GOP are saying out loud we know our supporters are too stupid to see this for what it is and will latch on to, "they are attacking a religious liberty bill, we had to vote against it to protect Jesus from the democrats.... by the way of you send us $50 we will keep defending Jesus for you because the Son of God needs Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene to protect him.")
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I actually do and its not framing - its showing choice
Where do we set lines on what is choice, and what is born that way?
In all the things in my life, what can I personally say is born that way vs choice? Anything? I mean you and I already have established that money could motivate us to have sex with the opposite sex, is that a choice?
As noted, probably for another thread, but allowing this would make for a completely different set of logistical problems. For example, consider a hypothetical compromise bill with two sections: A) $1 trillion in spending for solar, nuclear, hydro, etc. energy research/implementation and B) assignment of 50 new oil drilling leases in Alaska (or whatever number/location makes hypothetical sense). The Ds and Rs on committee agree to the compromise, but when it comes to the vote, all the Ds (who control the chamber) vote against section B.
The Commish
Footballguy
What is claimed is not what is stated in the bill. Everyone should read it and understand it.
ETA: YF2K covered it I see.
Last edited by a moderator:
the moops
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
NB is consistently more interested in the "social" aspects of events
Like ignoring the content of a bill and focusing on the short handed name that people come up with to refer to it as or ignoring that there was a major argument between trump and the SS and focusing on whether he physically touched the steering wheel etc
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Close. I'm consistently more interested in media bias. You're more than welcome to call them out yourself. But since all the "errors" are in favor of your tribe I won't hold my breath.
Also LOL at "short handed name".
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Now Commish is a card carrying member of the left
I’m not sure how old you are but I’m pretty sure Commish and I are about the same age and voted for a lot of Republicans and a lot more than Democrats. It’s folks like you and Trump supporters that make it easy to walk away from the GOP.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
No idea what you're babbling about and honestly I have no idea why I'm catching heat for answering a simple question: why did the GOP vote against this. My opinion was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I'm atheist - I don't have a dog in the fight at all. But it was getting a little tiresome last night with all the "I haven't read the bill but I have opinions on it!" across 3 different threads here.Now Commish is a card carrying member of the left
I’m not sure how old you are but I’m pretty sure Commish and I are about the same age and voted for a lot of Republicans and a lot more than Democrats. It’s folks like you and Trump supporters that make it easy to walk away from the GOP.
What do YOU think? Why did GOP vote against this? They're simply evil? They just hate women?
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Just want to point out that it's not the GOP that doesn't know and can't even define what a "woman" is.
Can't think of anything more that says, "I hate women" than denying their very existence.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes owes me an apology! 
GordonGekko
Footballguy
This is a very good question.
The answer is it's bait.
If Cocaine Mitch and McCarthy say "The RFRA is gone, we can't support that" then Schumer and Pelosi will go in public, in the MSM and say, "OK, we pulled that to make a deal work, sign off on it now"
The potential loss of votes are being perceived as not as brutal as the votes lost if the GOP took the bait.
One thing working in favor of the Republican Party now, as Katy Tur points out shameless, no one wants to believe much out of the majority of the MSM now. Certainly the hard line left will dogmatically stick to the script, but their votes aren't going anywhere.
What will Moderates, Independents, Undecideds and Late Stage Voters do? That's far more critical.
The staggering losses of Suburban women voters, Hispanic/Latino voters and the Military voting block is too much to overcome.
Losing some votes today is better than losing full on legacy votes tomorrow. This is where Team Blue and the GOP differ. The Democrats will hold onto all LGBT agendas, even if it costs them against other voting blocks. The GOP will cut bait at times because the math won't work out.
Operationally, Team Blue doesn't apply the sunk cost fallacy at all. This is what happens when ideology is rooted around feelings and moving goal posts.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
Because it's bad political strategy.
There's a ton I don't like about Cocaine Mitch. But he's a legitimate war time consigliere.
"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious." - Sun Tzu
The Commish
Footballguy
Im not going to be much help. I dont consume our media sources you guys are obsessed with especially the political nonsense. I am not shocked in the least that they misstate things. Thats how they get your clicks to pay for their nonsense.
"My tribe" exists largely outside the US media bubble. Every time either side points out bias, its a "no #### shelock....stop consuming it" moment for me. Theyre giving you exactly what you demand.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
There is no room for anything other than A or B in the minds of many here....its easier that way. Been swimming against this nonsense for a decade or so on this boardNow Commish is a card carrying member of the left
I’m not sure how old you are but I’m pretty sure Commish and I are about the same age and voted for a lot of Republicans and a lot more than Democrats. It’s folks like you and Trump supporters that make it easy to walk away from the GOP.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Any heat I’m giving off is you claiming Commish and I are part of the left. You seem to claim the right as your tribe (maybe not and I know you don’t support Trump). I don’t have a tribe - I personally think tribes are dumb.
I already said I think having a 5 part bill with one part being something you know the other side won’t go for is garbage. And I assume that’s why those GOP folks voted against it.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I take part of that back - I’m firmly in the Donald Trump was the worst President ever, is dangerous and shouldn’t be anywhere near the WH ever again tribe.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
We may be talking about different things then. I read the actual bill. People were discussing the (left) media reports on it and I was offering my opinion based on the bill.
The Commish
Footballguy
As did I. It didnt say what you asserted it said. I had a reply laid out to correct it but YF2K summed it up nicely before I got to it
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
OK I think we're in agreement. I was just adding that I don't think it was some accidental oversight - imo the way it was going to be reported was the whole point.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
OK I don't have any problem with disagreement. Why do YOU think the GOP opposed it?
The Commish
Footballguy
No idea....doesnt really matter to me. The fact is they did and they created a false claim to do it.
ETA: to be clearer, i believe them when they say thats the reason they rejected it.
Last edited by a moderator:
the moops
Footballguy
After reading what yankeefan had to write, do you still believe this to be true?
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
YF made 2 posts. 1 included the Sec 5 direct reference to the RFR and 1 did not. When you ask do I believe it to be true are you asking if it's true that it's in the bill (it is) or are you asking if it's true that's the reason the GOP voted against it?
Maybe "rollback" wasn't the right word but I'd be a little surprised if that was your objection. Supercedes?
I still believe it was included on purpose for the headlines they knew it would generate - and they were right there.
DropKick
Footballguy
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Similar threads
