436
Gay Louisiana doctor says he’s leaving the state over its ‘discriminatory’ legislation
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
436 points (95.4% liked)
News
23328 readers
4431 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That’s a direct result of losing the Supreme Court. It was the only mechanism keeping minorities and women safe in red states. Now that it’s gone, the apparatus of state power is going to grind them up if they don’t have the resources to get out.
Next time someone says “democrats and republicans are the same” or “Clinton would have been just as bad”, think of the SC and federal district judges she would have appointed. Think of how different things would be for people in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Arkansas etc right now.
Then tell me again how your vote doesn’t matter.
No, the problem here is with the Senate, and it's arcane traditions where unanimous consent is required to get anything substantial done, and if the outsize power it gives the Majority Leader and the committee chairs to set the agends, who are only selected by the majority members. With the normal rules it takes 60 votes to get anything done. But if the Majority Leader or the relevant committee chair doesn't like a thing, they get a pocket veto to derail it.
Our current situation at the Supreme Court has everything to do with Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham deciding that the Senate's "advise and consent" role includes being able to perpetually ignore the President by failing to schedule a vote. When RBG died, Republicans made clear that they would have voted down a progressive replacement. I think it was Graham that literally challenged Obama to name a more centrist judge, and gave Garland as an example by name. Then, when Obama nominated Garland, Graham pivoted and said that now that Obama nominated that centrist, the Senate still wouldn't consider the nomination until after the election.
Make no mistake about it, the reason why Graham and McConnell never scheduled a vote is that they knew it would pass. So two Senators essentially vetoed Obama's pick, which is in flagrant opposition to the Constitution, which says the whole Senate has to vote on it. (Then , of course, when the tables were turned 4 years later Mitch and Lindsay came to different conclusions).
Even if Clinton won in 2020, there is no guarantee these Senate Republicans would have played fair and lived up to their commitments. They would have found new and novel ways to screw the country.
Agreed the problem is multi faceted, and it needs to be fought on multiple fronts. If I were an American I would support statehood for DC and PR to address the small-d-democratic deficit of the senate, anti-gerrymandering rules, all that stuff.
But none of these things are made better by not having a Democrat in the White House.
Those are all Band-Aids, the problem doesn't get fixed until the Judiciary is fixed, and so much of that depends on the Senate that we can't fix the Judiciary without fixing the Senate first.
The Senate was originally founded as a check on direct democracy, after all. Senators were appointed directly by State Legislatures, not by popular vote. Which meant that they needed to have direct political connections, both inside their state and outside, to get anything done. And I think that's the origin of their arcane rules, they considered themselves part of an exclusive club, so they made rules that reinforced those personal connections to get anything done.
I doubt the founders ever intended for Lindsay Graham to have a permanent veto on naming Supreme Court Justices, or "Coach" Tuberville to have a permanent veto on confirming high-ranking military appointments. Yet here we are.
Let's be clear. The normal rules are 50 votes to pass legislation. The fillibuster was never meant to be a permanent fixture and needs to be abolished immediately.
It's more than just the Filibuster. The Senate rules are complex, on purpose, to make actually getting things done difficult, and revising those rules required unanimous consent.
Look at what "Coach" Tuberville is doing. There are a bunch of military promotions that require Senate confirmation. The normal process is to debate each one individually. Debating them and approving them together, in one batch, requires changing the rules, which requires Unanimous Consent. Coach is withholding that consent because the military is transporting women in their ranks who need health care that might require abortion to states that allow it. Which has nothing to do with the merits of the promotions.
He is using the Senate rules as a cudgel to hold Military Readiness hostage until he gets his way. And it's the inane structure of the Senate rules that allow this.
Im in school in Louisiana where there is a big push to improve the state healthcare ranking from 49/50 to 40 in the next 10 or so years.
Nation wide, over 50% of doctors stay in the same state they did their residency training in. So if you get the resident, chances are you get a doctor in the long term. You want residents to do their training in your state.
But with the new laws, so many of my classmates are not even considering doing their residency training in Louisiana. I sure as hell dont want to. So this law is making more people seek training outside of the state and less will likely return after. Its going to end up draining even more doctors out of the already horribly health deprived state. Absolute lunacy.
We ain't getting to 40 like this.
If they only would have let Obama appoint his justice! Then RBG could have retired instead of dying on the bench trying to hang on until a dem president. That whole shit was so underhanded, and then the GOP called it BS when dems tried to keep out a literal rapist.
They dared the dems to do something about it, and the dems blinked. They always blink.
😭 yeah… It’s such pain to have to fight someone who’s fighting dirty. You either have to figure out how to beat them anyway, or get dirty yourself, and dems weren’t ready to get dirty yet.
This is part of the GOP strategy.
Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri has openly acknowledged that the GOP strategy is to make it so miserable for Democrats in red and purple states that they will move to blue states. That would, in turn, cement Republican power in the White House, Senate and thereby the Supreme Court.
There was a thread yesterday saying the usual "Democrats should pick a better candidate than Biden".
Clinton failed. Should have run a better campaign.
Obviously. But that’s not the point I was making.