Term limits for The Supreme Court.
Dear Krystal and Saagar, Remember when Mitch McConnell changed the rules in the Senate? You know, to make the Supreme Court Justices able to be nominated with just a simple majority of 50 votes rather than 60?. Well wouldn't it be possible for Senate Democrats respond by changing the Senate rules to have a simple majority vote on term limits:? Susan Collins and Joe Maunchin are both publicly saying Kavanaugh lied to them so who is to say they are not on board with term limits as a solution? I am not saying end the fillibuster, but to do what mitch did and change the Senate rules just this once for Supreme Court Justices. Or would the Dem's rather not do anything at all while in the majority, because they can just fund raise off of it and just claim the only solution is to vote blue? Just wondering, Dustin Olsen Humble owner of The Mushroomery in the great state of Oregon.
What would happen if America kept spending regardless of fed hike?
I only took econ 201 and 202, and it's been years. Part of me wonders if the recent increase in gas prices and rate hikes will even matter given this downward spiral of doom everyone seems to be feeling. People around me seem to be abandoning any hope they'll survive this recession, giving up and disregarding preparations. Who can blame them? Based on my income, I am in the top 1-2% and still feel I have to work 70-80 hours just to create a lifestyle similar to the previous generations' middle class. I feel for the woman I spoke to last week who works for Lowes. She makes $15h and pays $250 a week to go to work. I mean what the hell. So I'm curious: What would happen if America kept spending regardless of the fed hike? Is there a way to work against these corporate greedy elites and corrupt politicians?
Religious Freedom
Freedom FROM religion should be included in freedom of religion in the constitution. Why is this not being argued when it comes to abortion? "You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon. What freedom from religion means is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that you can be free to follow the demands of your own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. You have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin." Shouldn't this be the basis of why overturning Roe along with the right to privacy be the arguments since this is all about religious dogma and conception?
Codified Law & Supermajority
There are two questions that I've seen arise around codifying Roe and Obama's supermajority. First, even if Roe had been codified, could the Supreme Court still have overturned it? Second, did Obama have a supermajority for the full two years, or is there validity to the counterarguments that senators' health (Byrd, Kennedy) and an election recount (Franken) kept Dems below 60 for the majority of the term? Thanks for the show, and I hope you'll do a live one for the Washingtonians here because we're not all swamp creatures!